EFFECTS OF STIMULUS ROTATION, SHAPE, AND VISUAL ANGLE UPON HUMAN VISUAL EVOKED RESPONSE

SHOJI KAKIGI; MASAAKI MIYAZAKI; TOSHIAKI MORI; ICHIRO IWAUCHI

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.14.153

SHOJI KAKIGI, MASAAKI MIYAZAKI, TOSHIAKI MORI, ICHIRO IWAUCHI

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1972 Volume 14 Issue 4 Pages 153-157

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.14.153

Details

Published: 1972 Received: November 02, 1972 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : The effects of stimulus size, rotation, and shape upon the averaged evoked response were investigated in Experiment I and 2. The evoked response (P₁-N₁ ; P₂-N₂;N₂-P₃) increased as a function of stimulus size in both experiments, while no effect of rotation was found. The later evoked response components (P₂-N₂;N₂-P₃) to the large square and to the triangle were different in Ex-periment 2. The effect of visual angle upon the evoked response was investigated in Experiment 3. The later evoked response components decreased as a func-tion of visual angle. In consideration of the results of Experiment 2 and 3 the possibility that the difference of the evoked response between the large square and triangle was due to the difference in visual angle was suggested.
Right : The effects of stimulus size, rotation, and shape upon the averaged evoked response were investigated in Experiment I and 2. The evoked response (P₁-N₁; P₂-N₂; N₂-P₃) incrcascd as a function of stimulus size in both experiments, while no effect of rotation was found. The later evoked response components (P₂-N₂; N₂-P₃) to the large square and to the triangle were different in Experiment 2. The effect of visual angle upon the evoked response was investigated in Experiment 3. The later evoked response components decreased as a function of visual angle. In consideration of the results of Experiment 2 and 3 the possibility that the difference of the evoked response between the large square and triangle was due to the difference in visual angle was suggested.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Department of Psychology, Hiroshima University
2) Hiroshima Jogakuin University

Right :
1) Department of Psychology, Hiroshima University
2) Hiroshima jogakuin University

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : COPENHAVER, R. M., & PERRY, N. W. 1964 Factors affecting visually evoked cortical potentials such as impaired vision of varying etiology. Invest. Ophthal., 3, 665-675.
JOHN, E. R., HERRINGTON, R. AI., & SUTTON, S. 1967 Effects of visual form on the evoked response. Science, 155, 1439-1442.
KAKIGI, S. AIIYAZAKI, M., & MOM, T. 1972 Human visual evoked response as a function of stimulus size and density of patterned stimulus. Jap. psychol. Res., 14, 135-142.
KITAJIMA, H. 1967 On the cerebral evoked response in man as a function of the intensity of flicker stimulation. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 22, 325-336.
KOPELL, B. S., WITTNER, W. K., & WARRICK, G. L. 1969 The effects of stimulus differences, light intensity, and selective attention on the amplitude of the visual averaged evoked potential in man. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 26, 619-622.
PERRY, N. W., & CHILDERS, D. G. 1969 The human visual evoked response. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
PERRY, N. W., CHILDERS, D. G., DAWSON, W. W., & STEWART, H. L. 1968 Darkadapted visual evoked response. APA Proceedings 76th Annual Convention, Pp. 315-316.
SPEHLMAN, R. 1965 The averaged electrical responses to diffuse and to patterned light in the human. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 19, 560-569.

Right : COPENHAVER, R. M., &PERRY, N. W. 1964 Factors affecting visually evoked cortical potentials such as impaired vision of varying etiology. Incest. Ophthal., 3, 665-675.
JOHN, E. R., HERRINGTON, R. NI., &SUTTON, S. 1967 Effects of visual form on the evoked response. Science, 155, 1439-1442.
KAKIGI, S. MIYAZAKI, M., &MORI, T. 1972 Human visual evoked response as a function of stimulus size and density of patterned stimulus. Jap. psychol. Res., 14, 135-142.
KITAJIMA, H. 1967 On the cerebral evoked response in man as a function of the intensity of flicker stimulation. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 22, 325-336.
KOPELL, B. S., WITTNER, W. K., &WARRICK, G. L. 1969 The effects of stimulus differences, light intensity, and selective attention on the amplitude of the visual averaged evoked potential in man. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 26, 619-622.
PERRY, N. W., &CHILDERS, D. G. 1969 The human visual evoked response. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
PERRY, N. W., CHILDERS, D. G., DAWSON, W. W., &STEWART, H. L. 1968 Dark-adapted visual evoked response. APA Proceedings 76th Annual Convention, Pp.315-316.
SPEHLMAN, R. 1965 The averaged electrical responses to diffuse and to patterned light in the human. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 19, 560-569.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : The effects of stimulus size, rotation, and shape upon the averaged evoked response were investigated in Experiment I and 2. The evoked response (P₁-N₁; P₂-N₂; N₂-P₃) incrcascd as a function of stimulus size in both experiments, while no effect of rotation was found. The later evoked response components (P₂-N₂; N₂-P₃) to the large square and to the triangle were different in Experiment 2. The effect of visual angle upon the evoked response was investigated in Experiment 3. The later evoked response components decreased as a function of visual angle. In consideration of the results of Experiment 2 and 3 the possibility that the difference of the evoked response between the large square and triangle was due to the difference in visual angle was suggested.
Right : The effects of stimulus size, rotation, and shape upon the averaged evoked response were investigated in Experiment 1 and 2. The evoked response (P₁-N₁; P₂-N₂; N₂-P₃) increased as a function of stimulus size in both experiments, while no effect of rotation was found. The later evoked response components (P₂-N₂; N₂-P₃) to the large square and to the triangle were different in Experiment 2. The effect of visual angle upon the evoked response was investigated in Experiment 3. The later evoked response components decreased as a function of visual angle. In consideration of the results of Experiment 2 and 3 the possibility that the difference of the evoked response between the large square and triangle was due to the difference in visual angle was suggested.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: AFFILIATION Details: Wrong :
1) Department of Psychology, Hiroshima University
2) Hiroshima jogakuin University

Right :
1) Department of Psychology, Hiroshima University
2) Hiroshima Jogakuin University

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : COPENHAVER, R. M., &PERRY, N. W. 1964 Factors affecting visually evoked cortical potentials such as impaired vision of varying etiology. Incest. Ophthal., 3, 665-675.
JOHN, E. R., HERRINGTON, R. NI., &SUTTON, S. 1967 Effects of visual form on the evoked response. Science, 155, 1439-1442.
KAKIGI, S. MIYAZAKI, M., &MORI, T. 1972 Human visual evoked response as a function of stimulus size and density of patterned stimulus. Jap. psychol. Res., 14, 135-142.
KITAJIMA, H. 1967 On the cerebral evoked response in man as a function of the intensity of flicker stimulation. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 22, 325-336.
KOPELL, B. S., WITTNER, W. K., &WARRICK, G. L. 1969 The effects of stimulus differences, light intensity, and selective attention on the amplitude of the visual averaged evoked potential in man. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 26, 619-622.
PERRY, N. W., &CHILDERS, D. G. 1969 The human visual evoked response. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
PERRY, N. W., CHILDERS, D. G., DAWSON, W. W., &STEWART, H. L. 1968 Dark-adapted visual evoked response. APA Proceedings 76th Annual Convention, Pp.315-316.
SPEHLMAN, R. 1965 The averaged electrical responses to diffuse and to patterned light in the human. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 19, 560-569.

Right : COPENHAVER, R. M., & PERRY, N. W. 1964 Factors affecting visually evoked cortical potentials such as impaired vision of varying etiology. Incest. Ophthal., 3, 665-675.
JOHN, E. R., HERRINGTON, R. M., &SUTTON, S. 1967 Effects of visual form on the evoked response. Science, 155, 1439-1442.
KAKIGI, S. MIYAZAKI, M., & MORI, T. 1972 Human visual evoked response as a function of stimulus size and density of patterned stimulus. Jap. psychol. Res., 14, 135-142.
KITAJIMA, H. 1967 On the cerebral evoked response in man as a function of the intensity of flicker stimulation. Electroenceph.clin.Neurophysiol., 22, 325-336.
KOPELL, B. S., WITTNER, W. K., & WARRICK, G. L. 1969 The effects of stimulus differences, light intensity, and selective attention on the amplitude of the visual averaged evoked potential in man. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 26, 619-622.
PERRY, N. W., &CHILDERS, D. G. 1969 The human visual evoked response. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
PERRY, N. W., CHILDERS, D. G., DAWSON, W. W., & STEWART, H. L. 1968 Dark-adapted visual evoked response. APA Proceedings 76th Annual Convention, Pp. 315-316.
SPEHLMAN, R. 1965 The averaged electrical responses to diffuse and to patterned light in the human. Electroenceph. clin. Neurophysiol., 19, 560-569.

Abstract

The effects of stimulus size, rotation, and shape upon the averaged evoked response were investigated in Experiment 1 and 2. The evoked response (P₁-N₁; P₂-N₂; N₂-P₃) increased as a function of stimulus size in both experiments, while no effect of rotation was found. The later evoked response components (P₂-N₂; N₂-P₃) to the large square and to the triangle were different in Experiment 2. The effect of visual angle upon the evoked response was investigated in Experiment 3. The later evoked response components decreased as a function of visual angle. In consideration of the results of Experiment 2 and 3 the possibility that the difference of the evoked response between the large square and triangle was due to the difference in visual angle was suggested.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!