1968
DOI: 10.1037/h0026617
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transitivity of visual judgments of simultaneity.

Abstract: Judgments of the simultaneity of pairs of brief light flashes are not in general veridical, i.e., objective and subjective simultaneity relations are not identical. To explain this discrepancy, it was proposed that there exists a simultaneity center in the brain where paths of excitation from the visual system must coincide to produce the experience of simultaneity. The experiment tested an implication of the simultaneity center hypothesis, that simultaneity judgments are transitive. 3 experienced Os were mono… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
15
0

Year Published

1972
1972
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…hemisphere, while depth perception mainly is achieved by the right one (Durnford & Kimura, 1971). Corwin and Boynton (1968) and Efron (1963) have argued from their data that a common "simultaneity center" for all sensory modalities possibly is located in the dominant hemisphere. If this is true, then information projected onto the right hemisphere must have at least one extra neural stage to go through, and hence may end up with a greater variability than information projected directly onto the left hemisphere.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…hemisphere, while depth perception mainly is achieved by the right one (Durnford & Kimura, 1971). Corwin and Boynton (1968) and Efron (1963) have argued from their data that a common "simultaneity center" for all sensory modalities possibly is located in the dominant hemisphere. If this is true, then information projected onto the right hemisphere must have at least one extra neural stage to go through, and hence may end up with a greater variability than information projected directly onto the left hemisphere.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Explicit manipulations of directed attention in tasksrequiring temporal-orderjudgments have shown that the perception of temporal order may be, influenced by attention when stimuli are presented ln different sensory modalities (Sternberg, Knoll, & Gates, 1971) within the auditory modality (Needham, 1936), ln vision, there is indirect evidencesuggestingthat attention may influence the perception of temporal order of visual stimuli (Corwin & Boynton, 1968;Sekuler, 1976;Sekuler, Tynan, & Levinson, 1973). Corwin and Boynton (1968) found that when a foveal stimulus is presented simultaneously with a , peripheral stimulus, the fovealstimulusappearsto oecurtirst (see also Rutschmann, 1966).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most are not applicable; some, for examiple, used dichoptic viewing (Robinson, 1967) or presented the two stimuli to different visual half-fields (Corwin and Boynton, 1968;Efzon, 1963;Hirsch and Sherrick, 1961;Lichtenstein, 1961;Rutschmann, 1966Rutschmann, , 1973Swaet, 1953). Many reported 50% thresholds, which seems inappropriate for the present problem: as a practical matter, we cannot be satisfied with Westheimer and Mcgee (1977) reported the study most relevant to the pr~esent proble~m.…”
Section: Luria Na 4al Submarine Medical Research Laboratory Abstractmentioning
confidence: 99%