Effects of the orientation of moving objects on the perception of streaming/bouncing motion displays

Kawabe, Takahiro; Miura, Kayo

doi:10.3758/bf03193698

Cited by 37 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A bottom-up directional recruitment account, based on the findings of Bertenthal et al (1993), using targets with varying speeds (specifically, decelerating then accelerating around coincidence) is sometimes invoked (either directly or indirectly under top-down influence) as a possible mechanism despite the conflicting evidence reported by Sekuler and Sekuler (1999; e.g., Kawabe & Miura, 2006;Maniglia et al, 2012;Kawachi & Gyoba, 2013). Our aim was to examine further the directional recruitment hypothesis in light of three potential confounds concerning two key aspects of the process (that comparable speed changes should produce similar effects and speed changes alone, without additional more complex motion changes, should produce the effect).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perceived bouncing occurs by somehow interrupting the integration of multiple detectors, thereby disrupting the facilitated network and breaking the bias toward smooth, continuous motion. For example, some authors have proposed that the integration of multiple detectors that underlies directional bias requires attention, so bounce-inducing manipulations (sounds, flashes, or touches) act by reducing attentional resources through distraction (e.g., Grassi and Casco, 2012;Kawabe & Miura, 2006). Bertenthal et al (1993) tested the hypothesis by examining the effects of manipulating the speed of the targets in a stream-bounce display.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior investigations have considered ''bottom-up'' (sensory) accounts, for example, directional bias in early vision (Bertenthal et al, 1993;Sekuler & Sekuler, 1999); ''top-down'' (cognitive) accounts, for example, attention Watanabe & Shimojo, 1998) and cognitive inference (Grove, Robertson, & Harris, 2016); and combinations of top-down and bottom-up processes, for example, directional bias modulated by attention Kawabe & Miura, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Low-Level Motion Characteristics Do Not Account for Perceptions of Stream-Bounce Stimuli

Zeljko

Grove

2016

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stream-bounce effect refers to a bistable motion stimulus that is interpreted as two targets either ''streaming'' past or ''bouncing'' off one another, and the manipulations that bias responses. Directional bias, according to Bertenthal et al., is an account of the effect proposing that low-level motion integration promotes streaming, and its disruption leads to bouncing, and it is sometimes cited either directly in a bottom-up fashion or indirectly under top-down control despite Sekuler and Sekuler finding evidence inconsistent with it. We tested two key aspects of the hypothesis: (a) comparable changes in speed should produce comparable disruptions and lead to similar effects; and (b) speed changes alone should disrupt integration without the need for additional more complex changes of motion. We found that target motion influences stream-bounce perception, but not as directional bias predicts. Our results support Sekuler and Sekuler and argue against the low-level motion signals driving perceptual outcomes in stream-bounce displays (directly or indirectly) and point to higher level inferential processes involving perceptual history and expectation. Directional bias as a mechanism should be abandoned and either another specific bottom-up process must be proposed and tested or consideration should be given to top-down factors alone driving the effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low-Level Motion Characteristics Do Not Account for Perceptions of Stream-Bounce Stimuli

Zeljko

Grove

2016

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with our account of motion processing, the dominance of the streaming percept has been accounted for by the spatiotemporal integration of local motion signals along the trajectories of each object (Bertenthal et al, 1993;Kawabe & Miura, 2006). The potential grouping of multiple object motion directions (an occluded object and either of the two objects in the stream/bounce display, in the present study) is also expected to strongly facilitate spatiotemporal motion integration (e.g., Yuille & Grzywacz, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…The potential grouping of multiple object motion directions (an occluded object and either of the two objects in the stream/bounce display, in the present study) is also expected to strongly facilitate spatiotemporal motion integration (e.g., Yuille & Grzywacz, 1988). Moreover, although a collision sound blocks spatiotemporal motion integration, leading to the hindering of the correspondence of objects in a straight-motion path and the bouncing percept (Watanabe, 2001), strong motion integration strengthens the object correspondence and has a relatively attenuating effect on the crossmodal effect of the sound (Kawabe & Miura, 2006). Considering these factors, we are led to speculate that strong motion integration caused by the grouping of a nearby object and either of the stream/ bounce objects may have interfered with the crossmodal effect of the collision sound on the stream/bounce display, resulting in the streaming percept.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occluded motion alters event perception

Kawachi

Gyoba

2013

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We employed audiovisual stream/bounce displays, in which two moving objects with crossing trajectories are more likely to be perceived as bouncing off, rather than streaming through, each other when a brief sound is presented at the coincidence of the two objects. However, Kawachi and Gyoba (Perception 35:1289-1294, 2006b) reported that the presence of an additional moving object near the two objects altered the perception of a bouncing event to that of a streaming event. In this study, we extended this finding and examined whether alteration of the event perception could be induced by the visual context, such as by occluded object motion near the stream/bounce display. The results demonstrated that even when the sound was presented, the continuous occluded motion strongly biased observers' percepts toward the streaming percept during a short occlusion interval (approximately 100 ms). In contrast, when the continuous occluded motion was disrupted by introducing a spatiotemporal gap in the motion trajectory or by removing occlusion cues such as deletion/accretion, the bias toward the streaming percept declined. Thus, we suggest that a representation of object motion generated under a limited occlusion interval interferes with audiovisual event perception.

show abstract

Temporal dynamics of the flash‐induced bouncing effect

Zhong

Zhao

Chen

et al. 2020

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two identical visual disks moving toward each other on a two‐dimensional (2D) display are more likely to be perceived as “streaming through” than “bouncing off” each other after their coincidence. However, either a brief auditory tone or visual flash presented at the coincident moment of the disks can strikingly increase the incidence of the bouncing percept. Despite the neural substrates underlying the sound‐induced bouncing effect have been widely investigated, little is known about the neural mechanisms underlying the flash‐induced bouncing effect. The present study used event‐related potential recordings to explore the temporal dynamics of the flash‐induced bouncing effect. The results showed that the amplitude of the postcoincidence parietooccipital P2 component (190–230 ms after coincidence) elicited by the visual motion was significantly smaller on bouncing relative to streaming trials only when the flash was presented but not when absent. In addition, the parietal P3 component (330–430 ms) was found to be larger on bouncing than streaming trials when the flash was presented, but the opposite was true when no flash was presented. These electrophysiological findings suggest that the flash‐induced bouncing effect may occur at both perceptual and postperceptual stages of processing.

show abstract

Effects of the orientation of moving objects on the perception of streaming/bouncing motion displays

Cited by 37 publications

References 45 publications

Low-Level Motion Characteristics Do Not Account for Perceptions of Stream-Bounce Stimuli

Low-Level Motion Characteristics Do Not Account for Perceptions of Stream-Bounce Stimuli

Occluded motion alters event perception

Temporal dynamics of the flash‐induced bouncing effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About