Following Randolph Blake's furrow further

In 1992, Randolph Blake, in collaboration with Robert Cormack and Eric Hiris, reported a strong deviation in perceived direction for a target moving over an oblique, static grating. Here we follow up on this effect, subsequently called the furrow illusion, to determine its origin. We find, unlike Cormack et al., that it is influenced by the luminance of the target and that it does not survive smooth pursuit of a moving fixation that stabilizes the target on the retina. We also introduce an inverted version of the furrow stimulus with the static grating visible only within the moving target rather than only around it. This "peep-hole" furrow stimulus shows a similar deviation in its direction and is quite similar to the well-known double-drift stimulus (Lisi & Cavanagh, 2015). Like the double-drift but unlike the furrow stimulus, its illusory direction persists when tracking a fixation that moves in tandem with the target. The main source for the illusion in both cases appears to be the terminators where the grating's bars meet the target contour. These terminators move laterally along the target's contour as the target moves vertically and the combination of these two directions creates the illusory oblique motion. However, the loss of the illusion for the tracked furrow stimulus suggests either a contribution from negative afterimages within the target or from induced motion in this case.