Literature DB >> 23872166

The flash grab effect.

Patrick Cavanagh1, Stuart Anstis.   

Abstract

When an object moves back and forth, its trajectory appears significantly shorter than it actually is. The object appears to stop and reverse well before its actual reversal point, as if there is some averaging of location within a window of about 100 ms (Sinico et al., 2009). Surprisingly, if a bar is flashed at the physical end point of the trajectory, right on top of the object, just as it reverses direction, the flash is also shifted - grabbed by the object - and is seen at the perceived endpoint of the trajectory rather than the physical endpoint. This can shift the perceived location of the flash by as much as 2 or 3 times its physical size and by up to several degrees of visual angle. We first show that the position shift of the flash is generated by the trajectory shortening, as the same shift is seen with or without the flash. The flash itself is only grabbed if it is presented within a small spatiotemporal attraction zone around the physical end point of the trajectory. Any flash falling in that zone is pulled toward the perceived endpoint. The effect scales linearly with speed, up to a maximum, and is independent of the contrast of the moving stimulus once it is above 5%. Finally, we demonstrate that this position shift requires attention. These results reveal a new "flash grab" effect in the family of motion-induced position shifts. Although it most resembles the flash drag effect, it differs from this in the following ways: (1) it has a different temporal profile, (2) it requires attention, (3) it is about 10 times larger.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention; Flash-drag effect; Motion; Position

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23872166      PMCID: PMC5047291          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2013.07.007

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


  29 in total

1.  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

2.  Latency difference, not spatial extrapolation.

Authors:  D Whitney; I Murakami
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  The position of moving objects.

Authors:  D Whitney; P Cavanagh
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-08-18       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Object updating and the flash-lag effect.

Authors:  Cathleen M Moore; James T Enns
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-12

5.  The motion-induced position shift depends on the visual awareness of motion.

Authors:  Katsumi Watanabe
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-04-19       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Perceived shrinkage of motion paths.

Authors:  Michele Sinico; Giulia Parovel; Clara Casco; Stuart Anstis
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Psychophysical signatures associated with magnocellular and parvocellular pathway contrast gain: comment.

Authors:  H P Snippe
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.129

8.  Perceptual latencies are shorter for motion towards the fovea than for motion away.

Authors:  S Mateeff; J Hohnsbein
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Motion extrapolation in catching.

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

10.  Voluntary attention modulates motion-induced mislocalization.

Authors:  Peter U Tse; David Whitney; Stuart Anstis; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-03-17       Impact factor: 2.240

View more
  23 in total

1.  Tactile motion lacks momentum.

Authors:  Gianluca Macauda; Bigna Lenggenhager; Rebekka Meier; Gregory Essick; Peter Brugger
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-06-08

2.  Motion Extrapolation for Eye Movements Predicts Perceived Motion-Induced Position Shifts.

Authors:  Elle van Heusden; Martin Rolfs; Patrick Cavanagh; Hinze Hogendoorn
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Predictions drive neural representations of visual events ahead of incoming sensory information.

Authors:  Tessel Blom; Daniel Feuerriegel; Philippa Johnson; Stefan Bode; Hinze Hogendoorn
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Motion Extrapolation in Visual Processing: Lessons from 25 Years of Flash-Lag Debate.

Authors:  Hinze Hogendoorn
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Meridian interference reveals neural locus of motion-induced position shifts.

Authors:  Sirui Liu; Peter U Tse; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Interactions of flicker and motion.

Authors:  Gennady Erlikhman; Sion Gutentag; Christopher D Blair; Gideon P Caplovitz
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Paradoxical stabilization of relative position in moving frames.

Authors:  Mert Özkan; Stuart Anstis; Bernard M 't Hart; Mark Wexler; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Flashed Müller-Lyer and Poggendorff Virtual Illusions.

Authors:  Stuart Anstis; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2021-05-26

9.  Color Modulates Feature Integration.

Authors:  Harpreet Saini; Heather Jordan; Mazyar Fallah
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-06-11

10.  Perceptual shrinkage of a one-way motion path with high-speed motion.

Authors:  Yutaka Nakajima; Yutaka Sakaguchi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.