Exploring the extent to which shared mechanisms contribute to motion-position illusions

Cottier, Timothy V.; Turner, William; Holcombe, Alex O.; Hogendoorn, Hinze

doi:10.1167/jov.23.10.8

Cited by 5 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that discrete sampling in the alpha range is unlikely to be responsible for MPIs. We also show that while we do not replicate the statistically significant correlations observed in Cottier et al (2023) after correcting for multiple comparisons, our correlation estimates are nevertheless similar. As such, we conduct an auxiliary analysis which provides updated estimates of the inter-illusion correlation matrix, by pooling the data from Cottier et al (2023) and the present study.…”

contrasting

confidence: 89%

“…The present study assessed whether IAF is related to the magnitude of eight MPIs. This study was an extension of Cottier et al (2023). As such, we adopted an individual differences approach and had participants complete the flash-lag effect (Nijhawan, 1994), luminance flash-lag effect (Sheth et al, 2000), Fröhlich effect (Fröhlich, 1924), flash-drag effect (Whitney & Cavanagh, 2000), flash-grab effect (Cavanagh & Anstis, 2013), motion-induced position shift (De Valois & De Valois, 1991), twinkle-goes effect (Nakayama & Holcombe, 2021), and flashjump effect (Cai & Schlag, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

No evidence that individual alpha frequency (IAF) represents a mechanism underlying motion-position illusions

Cottier,

Turner,

Chae

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motion-Position Illusions (MPIs) involve the position of an object being misperceived in the context of motion (i.e. when the object contains motion, is surrounded by motion, or is moving). A popular MPI is the flash-lag effect, where a static object briefly presented in spatiotemporal alignment with a moving object, is perceived in a position behind the moving object. Recently, Cottier et al. (2023) observed that there are stable individual differences in the magnitude of these illusions, and possibly even their direction. To investigate the possible neural correlates of these individual differences, the present study explored whether a trait-like component of brain activity, individual alpha frequency (IAF), could predict individual illusion magnitude. Previous reports have found some correlations between IAF and perceptual tasks. Participants (N=61) viewed the flash-lag effect (motion and luminance), Frohlich effect, flash-drag effect, flash-grab effect, motion-induced position shift, twinkle-goes effect, and the flash-jump effect. In a separate session, five minutes of eyes-open and eyes-closed resting state EEG data was recorded. Correlation analyses revealed no evidence for a correlation between IAF and the magnitude of any MPIs. Overall, these results suggest that IAF does not represent a mechanism underlying MPIs, and that no single shared mechanism underlies these effects. This suggests that discrete sampling at alpha frequency is unlikely to be responsible for any of these illusions.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

No evidence that individual alpha frequency (IAF) represents a mechanism underlying motion-position illusions

Cottier,

Turner,

Chae

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…that it takes a while to develop speed sensitivity) and/or that additional (speed-insensitive) mechanisms are involved in generating the illusion, which can be modulated by pre-flash motion. To this latter point, recent research suggests that phenomenologically similar illusions may arise from multiple mechanisms, some shared and some unique (Cottier et al, 2023). The absence of speed-dependence in Experiment 2B in some ways mirrors the characteristic speed insensitivity of the Frame Effect, potentially indicating a common mechanism.…”

Section: Frame Speed (Experiments 1a)mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Future study of the splitstimulus illusion could therefore investigate whether systematically varying the path length of the inducing frames affects perception of the current illusion. More generally, future studies could adopt an individual differences approach (e.g., Cottier et al, 2023) to directly examine the degree to which the Split-Stimulus Effect correlates, and thus shares mechanisms with, the Frame Effect, Flash-Grab Effect and other MPIs.…”

Section: Frame Speed (Experiments 1a)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent perception of competing predictions: a “Split-Stimulus Effect”

Melling,

Turner,

Hogendoorn

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual illusions are systematic misperceptions that can help us glean the heuristics with which the brain constructs visual experience. In a recently discovered visual illusion (the “Frame Effect”), it has been shown that flashing a stimulus inside of a moving frame produces a large misperception of that stimulus’s position. Across two experiments, we investigated a novel illusion (the “Split Stimulus Effect”) where the symmetrical motion of two overlaid frames produces two simultaneous positional misperceptions of a single stimulus. That is, one stimulus is presented but two are perceived. In both experiments, a single red dot was flashed when the moving frames reversed direction, and participants were asked to report how many dots they saw. Naïve participants sometimes reported seeing two dots when only one was presented indicating spontaneous perception of the illusion. A Bayesian analysis of the population prevalence of this effect was conducted. The dependence of this effect on the frames’ speed, the dot’s opacity, selective attention, as the presence/absence of pre-flash motion (‘postdiction’) was also investigated, and the features of this illusion were compared to similar motion position illusions within a predictive processing framework. In demonstrating this illusory “splitting” effect, this study is the first to show that it’s possible to be simultaneously aware of two opposing perceptual predictions about a single object, and provides evidence of the hyperpriors that limit and inform the structure of visual experience.

show abstract

“…Most studies report no common mechanism underlying perceptual illusions (Bosten et al, 2017;Cottier et al, 2023;Cretenoud et al, 2019;Grzeczkowski et al, 2017;Mazuz et al, 2023;Ward et al, 2017). These studies often found significant correlations within variants of specific illusions, but they only found weak correlations between different types of illusions (with few exceptions).…”

Section: Individual Differences In Visual Illusions: Graphical and An...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Visual Illusions: Graphical and Analytic Approaches For Finding Structure in Real-World Cases

Mehrvarz,

Popat,

Rouder

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are people who are susceptible to one illusion susceptible to others? Previous research has shown small correlations, but might small values reflect attenuation from measurement error? Data from 149 participants on 2 variants of 5 illusions were collected using an adjustment paradigm. The resulting data are of notable high quality inasmuch as there is relatively little within-subject variability and relatively much between-subject variability ($\gamma^2 \approx 1.14$, reliability $\approx .93$). Because the data are of such high quality, correlations may be estimated to high precision. In line with previous research, these cross-illusion correlations are low in value, about .22$\pm .07$. A Bayesian hierarchical analysis reveals that there is almost no attenuation from measurement error in these values. Though correlations are low, latent variable analysis reveals that the pattern among these correlations yields a single, common latent factor. This factor loads on every illusion and accounts for about 25\% of the variance in each; thus it is a {\em susceptibility to illusions} factor. We provide a novel set of statistical and graphical analyses focused on understanding the uncertainty in effects, correlations, and latent variables.

show abstract

Exploring the extent to which shared mechanisms contribute to motion-position illusions

Cited by 5 publications

References 69 publications

No evidence that individual alpha frequency (IAF) represents a mechanism underlying motion-position illusions

No evidence that individual alpha frequency (IAF) represents a mechanism underlying motion-position illusions

Concurrent perception of competing predictions: a “Split-Stimulus Effect”

Individual Differences in Visual Illusions: Graphical and Analytic Approaches For Finding Structure in Real-World Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About