Assessing the microstructure of motion correspondences wuth non-retinotopic feature attribution

Journal of Vision

Volumn 8, Issue 7, 2008, Pages

  Otto, Thomas U ^a   Öǧmen, Haluk ^b   Herzog, Michael H ^a  

^a EPFL   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguity; Apparent motion; Correspondence problem; Feature attribution; Indirect measure; Perceptual grouping; Temus Pikler display

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; TIME PERCEPTION;

HUMANS; MOTION PERCEPTION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SPACE PERCEPTION; TIME PERCEPTION;

EID: 46149090609     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/8.7.16     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alais, D., & Lorenceau, J. (2002). Perceptual grouping in the Ternus display: Evidence for an 'association field' in apparent motion. Vision Research, 42, 1005-1016.
2. Attneave, E. (1974). Apparent movement and the what-where connection. Psychologia, 17, 108-120.
3. Bach, M. (1996). The Freiburg Visual Acuity test - automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optometry and Vision Science, 73, 49-53.
4. Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ritter, A. (1986). Visual persistence and the effect of eccentric viewing, element size, and frame duration on bistable stroboscopic motion percepts. Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 275-280.
5. Burt, P., & Sperling, G. (1981). Time, distance, and feature trade-offs in visual apparent motion. Psychological Review, 88, 171-195.
6. Dawson, M. R. (1991). The how and why of what went where in apparent motion: Modeling solutions to the motion correspondence problem. Psychological Review, 98, 569-603.
7. Dawson, M. R., Nevin-Meadows, N., & Wright, R. D. (1994). Polarity matching in the Ternus configuration. Vision Research, 34, 3347-3359.
8. Gepshtein, S., & Kubovy, M. (2000). The emergence of visual objects in space-time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 8186-8191.
9. Gepshtein, S., & Kubovy, M. (2007). The lawful perception of apparent motion. Journal of Vision, 7(8):9, 1-15, http:// journalofvision.org/7/8/9/, doi:10.1167/7.8.9.
10. Green, M. (1986). What determines correspondence strength in apparent motion? Vision Research, 26, 599-607.
11. Grossberg, S., & Mingolla, E. (1985). Neural dynamics of form perception: Boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon color spreading. Psychological Review, 92, 173-211.
12. Harrar, V., & Harris, L. R. (2007). Multimodal Ternus: Visual, tactile, and visuo-tactile grouping in apparent motion. Perception, 36, 1455-1464.
13. He, Z. J., & Ooi, T. L. (1999). Perceptual organization of apparent motion in the Ternus display. Perception, 28, 877-892.
14. Hikosaka, O., Miyauchi, S., & Shimojo, S. (1993). Focal visual attention produces illusory temporal order and motion sensation. Vision Research, 33, 1219-1240.
15. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. Harcourt, New York.
16. Kolers, P. A. (1972). Aspects of motion perception. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
17. Kolers, P. A., & Pomerantz, J. R. (1971). Figural change in apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 99-108.
18. Korte, A. (1915). Kinematoskopische Untersuchungen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 72, 194-296.
19. Kramer, P., & Rudd, M. (1999). Visible persistence and form correspondence in Ternus apparent motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 952-962.
20. Kramer, P., & Yantis, S. (1997). Perceptual grouping in space and time: Evidence from the Ternus display. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 87-99.
21. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
22. Mitchison, G. J., & McKee, S. P. (1985). Interpolation in stereoscopic matching. Nature, 315, 402-404.
23. Navon, D. (1976). Irrelevance of figural identity for resolving ambiguities in apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 130-138.
24. Nishida, S., Ohtani, Y., & Ejima, Y. (1992). Inhibitory interaction in a split/fusion apparent motion: Lack of spatial-frequency selectivity. Vision Research, 32, 1523-1534.
25. Nishida, S., & Takeuchi, T. (1990). The effects of luminance on affinity of apparent motion. Vision Research, 30, 709-721.
26. Nishida, S., Watanabe, J., Kuriki, I., & Tokimoto, T. (2007). Human visual system integrates color signals along a motion trajectory. Current Biology, 17, 366-372.
27. Öǧmen, H., Otto, T. U., & Herzog, M. H. (2006). Perceptual grouping induces non-retinotopic feature attribution in human vision. Vision Research, 46, 3234-3242.
28. Otto, T. U., Öǧmen, H., & Herzog, M. H. (2006). The flight path of the phoenix-the visible trace of invisible elements in human vision. Journal of Vision, 6(10):7, 1079-1086, http://journalofvision.org /6/10/7/, doi:10.1167/6.10.7.
29. Pantle, A. J., & Petersik, J. T. (1980). Effects of spatial parameters on the perceptual organization of a bistable motion display. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 307-312.
30. Pantle, A., & Picciano, L. (1976). A multistable movement display: Evidence for two separate motion systems in human vision. Science, 193, 500-502.
31. Petersik, J. T. (1984). The perceptual fate of letters in two kinds of apparent movement displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 146-150.
32. Petersik, J. T., & Rice, C. M. (2006). The evolution of explanations of a perceptual phenomenon: A case history using the Ternus effect. Perception, 35, 807-821.
33. Pikler, J. (1917). Sinnesphysiologische Untersuchungen. Leipzig: Barth.
34. Scott-Samuel, N. E., & Hess, R. F. (2001). What does the Ternus display tell us about motion processing in human vision? Perception, 30, 1179-1188.
35. Shechter, S., Hochstein, S., & Hillman, P. (1988). Shape similarity and distance disparity as apparent motion correspondence cues. Vision Research, 28, 1013-1021.
36. Shimozaki, S. S., Eckstein, M., & Thomas, J. P. (1999). The maintenance of apparent luminance of an object. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1433-1453.
37. Taylor, M. M., & Creelman, C. D. (1967). PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 782-787.
38. Ternus, J. (1926). Experimentelle Untersuchungen über phänomenale Identität. Psychologische Forschung, 7, 81-136.
39. Tse, P. U., & Caplovitz, G. P. (2006). Contour discontinuities subserve two types of form analysis that underlie motion processing. Progress in Brain Research, 154, 271-292.
40. Tse, P. U., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). The duration of 3d form analysis in transformational apparent motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 244-265.
41. Ullman, S. (1979). The interpretation of visual motion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: NET Press.
42. Wallace, J. M., & Scott-Samuel, N. E. (2007). Spatial versus temporal grouping in a modified Ternus display. Vision Research, 47, 2353-2366.
43. Watanabe, T., & Cole, R. (1995). Propagation of local motion correspondence. Vision Research, 35, 2853-2861.
44. Werkhoven, P., Snippe, H. P., & Koenderink, J. (1990). Metrics for the strength of low-level motion perception. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, 1, 176-188.
45. Werkhoven, P., Sperling, G., & Chubb, C. (1993). The dimensionality of texture-defined motion: A single channel theory. Vision Research, 33, 463-485.
46. Werkhoven, P., Sperling, G., & Chubb, C. (1994). Perception of apparent motion between dissimilar gratings: Spatiotemporal properties. Vision Research, 34, 2741-2759.