Literature DB >> 17461687

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

David M Eagleman1, Terrence J Sejnowski.   

Abstract

In the flash-lag illusion, a moving object aligned with a flash is perceived to be offset in the direction of motion following the flash. In the "flash-drag" illusion, a flash is mislocalized in the direction of nearby motion. In the "flash-jump" illusion, a transient change in the appearance of a moving object (e.g., color) is mislocalized in the direction of subsequent motion. Finally, in the Frohlich illusion, the starting position of a suddenly appearing moving object is mislocalized in the direction of the subsequent motion. We demonstrate, in a series of experiments, a unified explanation for all these illusions: Perceptual localization is influenced by motion signals collected over approximately 80 ms after a query is triggered. These demonstrations rule out "latency difference" and asynchronous feature binding models, in which objects appear in their real positions but misaligned in time. Instead, the illusions explored here are best understood as biases in localization caused by motion signals. We suggest that motion biasing exists because it allows the visual system to account for neural processing delays by retrospectively "pushing" an object closer to its true physical location, and we propose directions for exploring the neural mechanisms underlying the dynamic updating of location by the activity of motion-sensitive neurons.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17461687      PMCID: PMC2276694          DOI: 10.1167/7.4.3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  38 in total

1.  Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness.

Authors:  D M Eagleman; T J Sejnowski
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-03-17       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  A model of the perceived relative positions of moving objects based upon a slow averaging process.

Authors:  B Krekelberg; M Lappe
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Flash-lag effect: differential latency, not postdiction.

Authors:  S S Patel; H Ogmen; H E Bedell; V Sampath
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-11-10       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  The onset repulsion effect.

Authors:  Ian M Thornton
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2002

5.  Untangling spatial from temporal illusions.

Authors:  David M Eagleman; Terrence J Sejnowski
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 13.837

6.  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

7.  Flash lag in depth.

Authors:  Laurence R Harris; Philip A Duke; Agnieszka Kopinska
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Shifts in perceived position following adaptation to visual motion.

Authors:  R J Snowden
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  1998-12-03       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Motion extrapolation in catching.

Authors:  R Nijhawan
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1994-07-28       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  How does binocular delay give information about depth?

Authors:  D C Burr; J Ross
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  43 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Velocity of motion across the skin influences perception of tactile location.

Authors:  Elizabeth H L Nguyen; Janet L Taylor; Jack Brooks; Tatjana Seizova-Cajic
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  An empirical explanation of the flash-lag effect.

Authors:  William T Wojtach; Kyongje Sung; Sandra Truong; Dale Purves
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-10-13       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  An updated midline rule: visual callosal connections anticipate shape and motion in ongoing activity across the hemispheres.

Authors:  Christiane Peiker; Thomas Wunderle; David Eriksson; Anne Schmidt; Kerstin E Schmidt
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Transient signals per se do not disrupt the flash-lag effect.

Authors:  Piers D Howe; Todd S Horowitz; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 12.579

7.  Flash-lag effect: complicating motion extrapolation of the moving reference-stimulus paradoxically augments the effect.

Authors:  Talis Bachmann; Carolina Murd; Endel Põder
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2011-08-05

8.  Faster processing of moving compared with flashed bars in awake macaque V1 provides a neural correlate of the flash lag illusion.

Authors:  Manivannan Subramaniyan; Alexander S Ecker; Saumil S Patel; R James Cotton; Matthias Bethge; Xaq Pitkow; Philipp Berens; Andreas S Tolias
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-08-22       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Automatic feature-based grouping during multiple object tracking.

Authors:  Gennady Erlikhman; Brian P Keane; Everett Mettler; Todd S Horowitz; Philip J Kellman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Dynamics of spatial distortions reveal multiple time scales of motion adaptation.

Authors:  Neil W Roach; Paul V McGraw
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.