{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020809248554913295, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018497109826589597, 'mean_word_length': 4.931506849315069, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Figural Aftereffects in Vision as a Function of Surround

Sagara and Oyama (1957) summarized a number of Japanese studies in which luminance, contrast and illuminance were varied during investigations of figural aftereffects (FAEs) of the type reported by Gibson (1933) and Koehler and Wallach (1944). With regard to luminance the magnitude of the FAEs increased with the increase in the luminance of the inspection figure when a luminous stimulus in a dark room was used. Recently Day and Strelow (1970) reported that the aftereffect of seen movement was absent or markedly reduced when the surround was dark or fearureless. The stationary FAE, therefore, appeared to be present in the absence of surround while the motion FAE was not. The present investigation was designed to see if presence or absence of surround per se had any influence on the stationary FAE.