Perceptual latencies are shorter for motion towards the fovea than for motion away

Mateeff, S; Hohnsbein, J.

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(88)90050-8

Cited by 79 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the introduction of this paper, we described Rauk and Luuk's (1980) research, which indicated a general tendency to estimate the position of an object more centrally than it actually is. Similar or closely related findings have been reported by Bedell and Flom (1981), Leibowitz, Myers, and Grant (1955), Mateeffand Gourevich (1983, 1984, Mateeff and Hohnsbein (1988), Mitrani and Dimitrov (1982), O'Regan (1984), Osaka (1977), Rose and Halpern (1992), and Skavenski (1990). So, it appears that we can use a well-established fact for the explanation of a newly detected phenomenon: the central near-location errors.…”

Section: Cue Displacementsupporting

confidence: 73%

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems

Hagenaar

Heijden

1997

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In studies using Averbach and Coriell's (1961) partial-report bar-probe paradigm with linear arrays, most errors involve the naming of an item that was in the display but in a position other than the cued one. Up to now, there is no general agreement on the origin of these location errors. Point of departure in this paper is that part of the location errors arises from inappropriate application of the cue. It is tested whether this originates from problems to perceive the position of the cue ("cuedisplacement hypothesis") or from confusion about the order of the items in the array ("item-order hypothesis"). The results of two bar-probe experiments are reported. A novel, crucial, finding in both experiments is that, among the location errors, there was a preponderance of response letters that came from the central side of the cued item. In the second experiment, this was observed not only in the usual postcue conditions but also when the cue preceded the array. These results positively corroborate the cue-displacement hypothesis and do not support the item-order hypothesis: The cue tends to be perceived more toward the center of the visual field than it actually is exposed-that is, there is a central drift of the cue.The partial-report technique is a powerful tool in the study of selective attention and memory processes in vision. In this technique, subjects are briefly exposed to a configuration of letters and a cue that specifies which part of the display is to be reported. In the variety introduced by Averbach and Coriell (1961 )-the partialreport bar-probe paradigm-one or several rows of letters are displayed, and only one letter has to be named. A visual cue (e.g., a bar or an arrow) is used to indicate the target letter. The cue is presented just before, during, or at various intervals after exposure of the letter display.From these partial-report bar-probe studies, a consistent pattern of results has emerged (see, e.g., Averbach & Coriell, 1961;Hagenaar & van der Heijden, 1995;Mewhort, Campbell, Marchetti, & Campbell, 1981;Mewhort, Marchetti, & Campbell, 1982;Townsend, 1973). The first robust finding is that accuracy of report depends on the moment of appearance of the cue. If the cue just precedes the letter display or is shown simultaneously, accuracy is quite high (approximately 75% correct). If the cue follows the display immediately, accuracy of report is still high. Accuracy decreases gradually when the cue is further delayed. At a delay of about 250 msec after display termination, accuracy reaches an asymptotic level ofabout 35% correct. The second robust finding is that accuracy is higher for letters displayed at the center and the ends of the rowes) than for letters shown between the center and Correspondence should be addressed to A. H. C. van der Heijden, Unit of Experimental and Theoretical Psychology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mail: heijden@ rulfsw.leidenuniv.nl ).end positions: The percentage correct reports are distributed in the shape of a "W" acro...

show abstract

Section: Cue Displacementsupporting

confidence: 73%

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems

Hagenaar

Heijden

1997

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Metzger (1932, in Mateeff andHohnsbein 1988) suggested that the lag of a flash was due to differential visual latencies of the moving versus the flashed items. Recently, Purushothaman et al (1998) manipulated the luminance of the moving and the flashed items relative to the background and found that the flash-lag effect decreased with increased contrast of the flash, and decreased contrast of the moving item relative to the background.…”

Section: Differential Visual Latenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Metzger (1932;in Mateeff and Hohnsbein 1988) reported that flashes of light were mislocalized when the background moved while the observer held steady fixation. Nijhawan (1994) presented observers with two types of events: a constantly visible line segment in continuous (real motion generated with analogue displays) rotary motion, and two line segments flashed in perfect spatial alignment with each end of the rotating one.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Attention in Motion Extrapolation: Are Moving Objects ‘Corrected’ or Flashed Objects Attentionally Delayed?

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objects flashed in alignment with moving objects appear to lag behind [Nijhawan, 1994 Nature (London) 370 256–257], Could this ‘flash-lag’ effect be due to attentional delays in bringing flashed items to perceptual awareness [Titchener, 1908/1973 Lectures on the Elementary Psychology of Feeling and Attention first published 1908 (New York: Macmillan); reprinted 1973 (New York: Arno Press)]? We overtly manipulated attentional allocation in three experiments to address the following questions: Is the flash-lag effect affected when attention is (a) focused on a single event in the presence of multiple events, (b) distributed over multiple events, and (c) diverted from the flashed object? To address the first two questions, five rings, moving along a circular path, were presented while observers attentively tracked one or multiple rings under four conditions: the ring in which the disk was flashed was (i) known or (ii) unknown (randomly selected from the set of five); location of the flashed disk was (i) known or (ii) unknown (randomly selected from ten locations), The third question was investigated by using two moving objects in a cost – benefit cueing paradigm, An arrow cued, with 70% or 80% validity, the position of the flashed object, Observers performed two tasks: (a) reacted as quickly as possible to flash onset; (b) reported the flash-lag effect, We obtained a significant and unaltered flash-lag effect under all the attentional conditions we employed, Furthermore, though reaction times were significantly shorter for validly cued flashes, the flash-lag effect remained uninfluenced by cue validity, indicating that quicker responses to validly cued locations may be due to the shortening of post-perceptual delays in motor responses rather than the perceptual facilitation, We conclude that the computations that give rise to the flash-lag effect are independent of attentional deployment.

show abstract

“…For example, when a flash physically coincides with a continuously moving object, the position of the moving object is perceived to be ahead of the flash. This visual phenomenon is called the flash-lag effectöFLE (Hazelhoff and Wiersma 1924; Metzger 1932, in Mateeff andHohnsbein 1988;MacKay 1961;Nijhawan 1994).At the input level of vision (eg the retina), a moving object and a flash should be aligned as they physically are. (1) Even after the retina, the positional representations in the very early stages should remain veridical.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Transients Reveal the Veridical Position of a Moving Object

Kanai

Verstraten

2006

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article (Published Version) http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Kanai, Ryota and Verstraten, Frans A J (2006) Visual transients reveal the veridical position of a moving object. Perception, 35 (4). pp. [453][454][455][456][457][458][459][460] This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/43994/ This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published version. Copyright and reuse:Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. For example, when a flash physically coincides with a continuously moving object, the position of the moving object is perceived to be ahead of the flash. This visual phenomenon is called the flash-lag effectöFLE (Hazelhoff and Wiersma 1924; Metzger 1932, in Mateeff andHohnsbein 1988;MacKay 1961;Nijhawan 1994).At the input level of vision (eg the retina), a moving object and a flash should be aligned as they physically are. (1) Even after the retina, the positional representations in the very early stages should remain veridical. Only after certain stages of visual processing does the neural representation correspond to the perceived and sometimes illusory position, as opposed to physical position. In this hierarchical view of visual processing, there is a transition from a veridical representation to a more perceptual representation as the processing proceeds to a higher stage. Usually, stationary objects are perceived roughly at the veridical location. Therefore, we cannot experimentally dissociate the neural responses from the physical input and the neural representations corresponding to the perceived location. In mislocalisation illusions, however, the perceived position can be dissociated from the physical position on the retina. Thus, mislocalisation illusions such as the FLE offer an opportunity for isolating the neural substrates representing our sense of space in the visual brain.In the present study, we report a new visual phenomenon that illuminates the issue of physical versus perceived (or illusory) position. In the classical FLE stimulus, as shown Abstract. The position of a moving object is often ...

show abstract

Perceptual latencies are shorter for motion towards the fovea than for motion away

Cited by 79 publications

References 11 publications

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems

The Role of Attention in Motion Extrapolation: Are Moving Objects ‘Corrected’ or Flashed Objects Attentionally Delayed?

Visual Transients Reveal the Veridical Position of a Moving Object

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About