Literature DB >> 10793892

Illusory spatial offset of a flash relative to a moving stimulus is caused by differential latencies for moving and flashed stimuli.

D Whitney1, I Murakami, P Cavanagh.   

Abstract

A flash that is presented adjacent to a continuously moving bar is perceived to lag behind the bar. One explanation for this phenomenon is that there is a difference in the persistence of the flash and the bar. Another explanation is that the visual system compensates for the neural delays of processing visual motion information, such as the moving bar, by spatially extrapolating the bar's perceived location forward in space along its expected trajectory. Two experiments demonstrate that neither of these models is tenable. The first experiment masked the flash one video frame after its presentation. The flash was still perceived to lag behind the bar, suggesting that a difference in the persistence of the flash and bar, does not cause the apparent offset. The second experiment employed unpredictable changes in the velocity of the bar including an abrupt reversal, disappearance, acceleration, and deceleration. If the extrapolation model held, the bar would continue to be extrapolated in accordance with its initial velocity until the moment of an abrupt velocity change. The results were inconsistent with this prediction, suggesting that there is little or no spatial compensation for the neural delays of processing moving objects. The results support a new model of temporal facilitation for moving objects whereby the apparent flash lag is due to a latency advantage for moving over flashed stimuli.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10793892     DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(99)00166-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  29 in total

1.  Vestibular signals can distort the perceived spatial relationship of retinal stimuli.

Authors:  R H Cai; K Jacobson; R Baloh; M Schlag-Rey; J Schlag
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  The influence of visual motion on perceived position.

Authors:  David Whitney
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Asynchronous perception of motion and luminance change.

Authors:  Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2003-03-07

4.  Shorter latencies for motion trajectories than for flashes in population responses of cat primary visual cortex.

Authors:  Dirk Jancke; Wolfram Erlhagen; Gregor Schöner; Hubert R Dinse
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2004-02-20       Impact factor: 5.182

5.  A flash-drag effect in random motion reveals involvement of preattentive motion processing.

Authors:  Taiki Fukiage; David Whitney; Ikuya Murakami
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  The perceived position of moving objects: transcranial magnetic stimulation of area MT+ reduces the flash-lag effect.

Authors:  Gerrit W Maus; Jamie Ward; Romi Nijhawan; David Whitney
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2012-02-02       Impact factor: 5.357

7.  Conscious updating is a rhythmic process.

Authors:  Ramakrishna Chakravarthi; Rufin Vanrullen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-06-11       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Spatial and temporal properties of the illusory motion-induced position shift for drifting stimuli.

Authors:  Susana T L Chung; Saumil S Patel; Harold E Bedell; Ozgur Yilmaz
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Why eye movements and perceptual factors have to be controlled in studies on "representational momentum".

Authors:  Dirk Kerzel
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-02

10.  Motion signals bias localization judgments: a unified explanation for the flash-lag, flash-drag, flash-jump, and Frohlich illusions.

Authors:  David M Eagleman; Terrence J Sejnowski
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 2.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.