Literature DB >> 25266716

Temporal estimation with two moving objects: overt and covert pursuit.

Robin Baurès1, Simon J Bennett, Joe Causer.   

Abstract

The current study examined temporal estimation in a prediction motion task where participants were cued to overtly pursue one of two moving objects, which could either arrive first, i.e., shortest [time to contact (TTC)] or second (i.e., longest TTC) after a period of occlusion. Participants were instructed to estimate TTC of the first-arriving object only, thus making it necessary to overtly pursue the cued object while at the same time covertly pursuing the other (non-cued) object. A control (baseline) condition was also included in which participants had to estimate TTC of a single, overtly pursued object. Results showed that participants were able to estimate the arrival order of the two objects with very high accuracy irrespective of whether they had overtly or covertly pursued the first-arriving object. However, compared to the single-object baseline, participants' temporal estimation of the covert object was impaired when it arrived 500 ms before the overtly pursued object. In terms of eye movements, participants exhibited significantly more switches in gaze location during occlusion from the cued to the non-cued object but only when the latter arrived first. Still, comparison of trials with and without a switch in gaze location when the non-cued object arrived first indicated no advantage for temporal estimation. Taken together, our results indicate that overt pursuit is sufficient but not necessary for accurate temporal estimation. Covert pursuit can enable representation of a moving object's trajectory and thereby accurate temporal estimation providing the object moves close to the overt attentional focus.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25266716     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-4110-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  31 in total

Review 1.  The allocation of attention during smooth pursuit eye movements.

Authors:  Paul Van Donkelaar; Anthony S Drew
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.453

2.  Information integration in judgements of time to contact.

Authors:  Patricia DeLucia; Mary Kaiser; Jason Bush; Les Meyer; Barbara Sweet
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2003-10

3.  The default allocation of attention is broadly ahead of smooth pursuit.

Authors:  Aarlenne Z Khan; Philippe Lefèvre; Stephen J Heinen; Gunnar Blohm
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Objects on a collision path with the observer demand attention.

Authors:  Jeffrey Y Lin; Steven Franconeri; James T Enns
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-07

5.  Effects of a moving distractor object on time-to-contact judgments.

Authors:  Daniel Oberfeld; Heiko Hecht
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Temporal-range estimation of multiple objects: evidence for an early bottleneck.

Authors:  Robin Baurès; Daniel Oberfeld; Heiko Hecht
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2011-03-26

7.  Do common systems control eye movements and motion extrapolation?

Authors:  Alexis D J Makin; Ellen Poliakoff
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.143

8.  Attention and selection for predictive smooth pursuit eye movements.

Authors:  E Poliakoff; C J S Collins; G R Barnes
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2005-10-21

9.  Spatial allocation of attention during smooth pursuit eye movements.

Authors:  Lee P Lovejoy; Garth A Fowler; Richard J Krauzlis
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Eye movements during multiple object tracking: where do participants look?

Authors:  Hilda M Fehd; Adriane E Seiffert
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-12-21
View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  The common rate control account of prediction motion.

Authors:  Alexis D J Makin
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-10

2.  Drift-diffusion explains response variability and capacity for tracking objects.

Authors:  Asieh Daneshi; Hamed Azarnoush; Farzad Towhidkhah; Amin Gohari; Ali Ghazizadeh
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-08-02       Impact factor: 4.379

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.