Localizing Non-Retinotopically Moving Objects

Abstract

How does the brain determine the position of moving objects? It turns out to be rather complex to answer this question when we realize that the brain has to solve the motion correspondence problem in two kinds of reference frames: Retinotopic and non-retinotopic ones. We show that visual objects are mislocalized along a non-retinotopic motion direction. Observers viewed two successive movie frames each consisting of an outlined square and two target elements inside the square. In the non-retinotopic condition the elements as well as the square moved vertically while two bars also centripetally or centrifugally moved. In the retinotopic condition the vertical movement of them was removed from the stimuli. The task of the observers was to judge a relative position of the elements. Consequently, the elements were mislocalized in the direction of both retinotopic and non-retinotopic motion, although the mislocalization was significantly larger in the retinotopic than in the non-retinotopic conditions. The results suggest that non-retinotopic as well as retinotopic motion processing contributes to the determination of perceived positions of moving objects.

Post-determined emotion: motor action retrospectively modulates emotional valence of visual images

“…To date, the postdictive effect has been observed in several sensory modalities, including visual [15][16][17][18][19], auditory [22] and tactile [20,21] perception. Moreover, several studies have reported postdictive integration of audio-visual [24,25] and tactile-visual [23,26] signals.…”

“…The retrospective effect of the information about a physically subsequent event on the psychological response to a current event is known as postdiction [15]. Previous studies have demonstrated postdictive modulation of the location [15,16], size [17], shape [18] and orientation [19] of visual objects. Similarly, the perceived positions of tactile (e.g.…”

Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames

“…3, a first stage of processing groups motion information and extracts reference frames that are used to compute the attributes of the moving objects. The use of nonretinotopic, motion-based reference frames has been supported by several studies (Agaoglu et al, 2012;Boi et al, 2009;Hisakata, Terao, & Murakami, 2013;Kawabe, 2008;Nishida, Watanabe, Kuriki, & Tokimoto, 2007;Öğmen, Otto, & Herzog, 2006;Yamada & Kawabe, 2013). On the basis of our results, we can summarize the reference-frame rules as follows: First, individual motion vectors are grouped according to their similarities (law of common fate).…”

“…The RFMF theory differs from these approaches by putting perceptual-grouping operations as an essential component of reference-frame extraction; in this context, the nonlinearity in the antagonistic interactions in Experiment 3b can be explained as an effect of perceptual grouping. Moreover, most theories of vision, including the aforementioned approaches to motion perception, are based on retinotopic representations, although mounting evidence is showing that perception is highly nonretinotopic (Agaoglu et al, 2012;Boi et al, 2009;Hisakata et al, 2013;Kawabe, 2008;Nishida et al, 2007;Öğmen et al, 2006;Shimozaki, Eckstein, & Thomas, 1999;Yamada & Kawabe, 2013). Hence, a fundamental gap exists between retinotopic theories and the nonretinotopic percepts that these theories attempt to explain.…”

Spatial congruency bias in identifying objects is triggered by retinal position congruence: Examination using the Ternus-Pikler illusion

“…The Ternus-Pikler paradigm is an effective method used to examine whether phenomena are based on non-retinotopic processing in the absence of eye movements [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] . The Ternus-Pikler illusion is a visual illusion of apparent motion 21 and consists of two frames separated by a short or long blank (inter-stimulus interval [ISI]; Fig.…”