No abstract

Probes flashed within a moving frame are dramatically displaced (Özkan, Anstis, ‘t Hart, Wexler, & Cavanagh, 2021; Wong & Mack, 1981). The effect is much larger than that seen on static or moving probes (induced motion, Duncker, 1929; Wallach, Bacon, & Schulman, 1978). These flashed probes are often perceived with the separation they have in frame coordinates—a 100% effect (Özkan et al., 2021). Here, we explore this frame effect on flashed tests with several versions of the standard stimulus. We find that the frame effect holds for smoothly or abruptly displacing frames, even when the frame changed shape or orientation between the end points of its travel. The path could be nonlinear, even circular. The effect was driven by perceived not physical motion. When there were competing overlapping frames, the effect was determined by which frame was attended. There were a number of constraints that limited the effect. A static anchor near the flashes suppressed the effect but an extended static texture did not. If the probes were continuous rather than flashed, the effect was abolished. The observational reports of 30 online participants suggest that the frame effect is robust to many variations in its shape and path and leads to a perception of flashed tests in their locations relative to the frame as if the frame were stationary. Our results highlight the role of frame continuity and of the grouping of the flashes with the frame in generating the frame effect.

Probes flashed within a moving frame are dramatically displaced (Ozkan et al, 2021; Wong & Mack, 1981). The effect is much larger than that seen on static or moving probes (induced motion, Duncker, 1929; Wallach et al, 1978). These flashed probes are often perceived with the separation they have in frame coordinates -- a 100% effect. Here we explore this frame effect on flashed tests with several versions of the standard stimulus. We find that the frame effect holds for smoothly or abruptly displacing frames, even when the frame changed shape or orientation between the endpoints of its travel. The path could be non-linear, even circular. The effect was driven by perceived not physical motion. When there were competing overlapping frames, the effect was determined by which frame was attended. There were a number of constraints that limited the effect. A static anchor near the flashes suppressed the effect but an extended static texture did not. If the probes were continuous rather than flashed, the effect was abolished. The results suggest that the frame effect is robust to many variations in its shape and path and leads to a perception of flashed tests in their locations relative to the frame as if the frame were stationary.

No abstract