Fig. 10: Selective and unselective saccadic suppression without any saccades.

This figure is identical to Fig. 9, except that real saccades were replaced (in the same subjects) with simulated saccades (exactly as in Fig. 8). All of the same conclusions were reached. There was selective suppression for low spatial frequencies when the texture surround was coarse (a); suppression was unselective for grating spatial frequency with a fine surround (b); and there was gradual recovery with time (c, d). In fact, perceptual suppression was clearer and longer lasting in this condition than with real saccades (also consistent with Figs. 1, 6, 8). All other conventions are as in Fig. 9. In c, the coarse texture surround showed a significant main effect of spatial frequency (1-way ANOVA, p = 0.0113, F = 7.6878; p = 0.0092 for post-hoc comparison between lowest and highest spatial frequency, indicated by **). In d, the coarse surround also showed a significant main effect of spatial frequency (1-way ANOVA, p = 0.0019, F = 13.5276; p = 0.0017 for post-hoc comparison between lowest and highest spatial frequency, and p = 0.0186 for post-hoc comparison between lowest and intermediate spatial frequency).