Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T06:04:55.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Perceptual asynchronies and the dual-channel differential latency hypothesis

from Part IV - Spatial phenomena: forward shift effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2010

By
Hulusi Kafaligönül ,
Saumil S. Patel ,
Haluk Öğmen ,
Harold E. Bedell  and
Gopathy Purushothaman
Edited by
Romi Nijhawan  and
Beena Khurana
Romi Nijhawan
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Beena Khurana
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Get access

Summary

Summary

The dual-channel differential latency hypothesis (Öğmen et al. 2004) successfully accounts for many aspects of the flash-lag effect (FLE). Here we use the dual-channel differential latency hypothesis to explain an illusion of perceived line length that can be viewed as one component of an illusion reported by Cai and Schlag (2001a). In the phenomenon studied here, a flash is presented collinear with a moving line that is simultaneously changing in length. The moving line is perceived to be misaligned with the flash (the FLE) and the length of the moving line is perceived to differ from its physical length at the instant of the flash. We designate this phenomenon the Cai line-Length Effect (CLE). Our analysis treats a horizontally moving line that also changes its vertical length as composed of two simultaneous motion components: (1) horizontal motion, and (2) vertical expansion or contraction. We measured perceived position misalignment and length misperception in the CLE paradigm, as well as separately for stimuli with the individual motion components of the CLE, as a function of target luminance. Perceived position misalignment and length misperception varied similarly with target luminance, both in the CLE paradigm and when the individual motion components were tested separately. The misperception of stimulus position and length in the CLE reflects an additional processing delay that may be caused by an interaction between the motion components in two directions. […]

Type
Chapter
Information
Space and Time in Perception and Action , pp. 379 - 395
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelson, E. H., & Movshon, J. A. (1982). Phenomenal coherence of moving visual pattern. Nature 300: 523–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. (2005). Perceptual pairing of colour and motion. Vision Res 45: 3015–3026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, D. H., Clifford, C. W., & Wenderoth, P. (2001). Asynchronous processing in vision: color leads motion. Curr Biol 11: 596–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedell, H. E., Chung, S. T. L., Öğmen, H., & Patel, S. S. (2003). Color and motion: which is the tortoise and which is the hare? Vision Res 43: 2403–2412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedell, H. E., Patel, S. S., Chung, S. T. L., & Öğmen, H. (2006). Perceptual consequences of timing differences within parallel feature-processing systems in human vision. In H., Öğmen & B. G., Breitmeyer (eds.), The First Half Second: The Microgenesis and Temporal Dynamics of Unconscious and Conscious Visual Processes (245–258). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brenner, E., & Smeets, J. B. J. (2000). Motion extrapolation is not responsible for the flash-lag effect. Vision Res 40: 1645–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, R. H. (2003). The Fröhlich effect is not due to a failure to perceive the beginning portion of motion trajectoryJ Vis 3: 485a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, R. H., & Cavanagh, P. (2002). Motion interpolation of a unique feature into stimulus gaps and blind spots. J Vis 2: 30a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, R. H., & Schlag, J. (2001a). A new form of illusory conjunction between color and shape. J Vis 1: 127a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, R. H., & Schlag, J. (2001b). Asynchronous feature binding and the flash-lag illusion. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42: S711.Google Scholar
Cai, R. H., Schlag-Rey, M., & Schlag, J. (2000). Displacement of the moving bar exists in the flash-lag effect. Society for Neuroscience Abstract 561: 1.Google Scholar
Eagleman, D. M., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness. Science 287: 2036–2038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fennema, C. L., & Thompson, W. B. (1979). Velocity determination in scenes containing several moving objects. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 9: 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzywacz, N., & Yuille, A. (1991). Theories for the visual perception of local velocity and coherent motion. In J., Landy & J., Movshon (eds.), Computational Models of Visual Processing (231–252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, L. R., Duke, P. A., & Kopinska, A. (2006). Flash lag in depth. Vision Res 46: 2735–2742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kanai, R., Sheth, B. R., & Shimojo, S. (2004). Stopping the motion and sleuthing the flash-lag effect: spatial uncertainty is the key to perceptual mislocalization. Vision Res 44: 2109–2128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerzel, D., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2003). Neuronal processing delays are compensated in the sensorimotor branch of the visual system. Curr Biol 13: 1975–1978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krekelberg, B., & Lappe, M. (2001). Neuronal latencies and the position of moving objects. Trends Neurosci 24: 335–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurenceau, J., & Shiffrar, M. (1992). The influence of terminators on motion integration across space. Vision Res 32: 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D., & Ullman, S. (1981). Directional selectivity and its use in early visual processing. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 211: 151–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKee, S. P., & Taylor, D. G. (1984). Discrimination of time: comparison of foveal and peripheral sensitivity. J Opt Soc Am A 1: 620–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mingolla, E., Todd, J. T., & Norman, J. F. (1992). The perception of globally coherent motion. Vision Res 32: 1015–1031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moutoussis, K., & Zeki, S. A. (1997). Direct demonstration of perceptual asynchrony in vision. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264: 393–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nijhawan, R. (1994). Motion extrapolation in catching. Nature 370: 256–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nijhawan, R. (2002). Neural delays, visual motion and the flash-lag effect. Trends Cogn Sci 6: 387–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Öğmen, H., Patel, S. S., Bedell, H. E., & Camuz, K. (2004). Differential latencies and the dynamics of the position-computation process for moving targets, assessed with the flash-lag effect. Vision Res 44: 2109–2128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pack, C. C., Berezovskii, V. K., & Born, R. T. (2001). Dynamic properties of neurons in cortical area MT in alert and anaesthetized macaque monkeys. Nature 414: 905–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, S. S., Öğmen, H., Bedell, H. E., & Sampath, V. (2000). Flash-lag effect: differential latency, not postdiction. Science 290: 1051a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purushothaman, G., Patel, S. S., Bedell, H. E., & Öğmen, H. (1998). Moving ahead through differential latency. Nature 396: 424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, D., & Beverley, K. I. (1978). Looming detectors in human visual pathway. Vision Res 18: 415–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roufs, J. A. (1974). Dynamic properties of vision – V. Vision Res 14: 853–869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, C. W. (1985). Analysis of visual modulation sensitivity. II. Peripheral retina and the role of photoreceptor dimensions. J Opt Soc Am A 2: 393–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wallach, H. (1995). Über Visuell Wahrgenommene Bewegungrichtung. Psychologische Forschung 20: 325–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitney, D., Murakami, I., & Cavanagh, P. (2000). Illusory spatial offset of a flash relative to a moving stimulus is caused by differential latencies for moving and flashed stimuli. Vision Res 40: 137–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, J. M., & Lit, A. (1983). A luminance-dependent visual latency for the Hess effect, the Pulfrich effect, and simple reaction time. Vision Res 23: 171–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×