Visual impressions of forces between objects: Entraining, enforced disintegration, and shattering

Visual Cognition

Volumn 19, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 635-674

  White, Peter A ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Causal perception. forces; Entraining; Force impressions; Launching effect; Phenomenal causality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ENFORCED DISINTEGRATION STIMULI; ENTRAINING STIMULI; EXPERIMENTATION; FORCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; KINEMATICS; MOTION; NORMAL HUMAN; OBJECT MANIPULATION; PERCEPTION; PHYSICAL RESISTANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHATTERING STIMULI; STIMULUS; VISION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

EID: 79958762943     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: 14640716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2011.575898     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bélanger, N. D., & Desrochers, S. (2001). Can 6-month-old infants process causality in different types of causal events? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 11-21.
2. Blakemore, S.-J. (2003). Deluding the motor system. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 647-655.
3. Bourgeois, K. S., Khawar, A. W., Neal, S. A., & Lockman, J. J. (2005). Infant manual exploration of objects, surfaces, and their interactions. Infancy, 8, 233-252.
4. Bushnell, E. W., & Boudreau, J. P. (1993). Motor development and the mind: The potential role of motor abilities as a determinant of aspects of perceptual development. Child Development, 64, 1005-1021.
5. Calderone, J. B., & Kaiser, M. K. (1989). Visual acceleration detection: Effect of sign and motion orientation. Perception and psychophysics, 45, 391-394.
6. Delevoye-Turrell, Y. N., Li, F.-X., & Wing, A. M. (2003). Efficiency of grip force adjustments for impulsive loading during imposed and actively produced collisions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 1113-1128.
7. Desmurget, M., & Sirigu, A. (2009). A parietal-premotor network for movement intention and motor awareness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 411-419.
8. Frith, C. (2002). Attention to action and awareness of other minds. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 481-487.
9. Gandevia, S. C., & Burke, D. (1992). Does the nervous system depend on kinesthetic information to control natural limb movements? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 614-632.
10. Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69, 477-491.
11. Gottsdanker, R. M. (1956). The ability of human operators to detect acceleration of target motion. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 477-487.
12. Haggard, P. (2005). Conscious intention and motor cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 290-295.
13. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). "Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411-428.
14. Hubbard, T. L., Blessum, J. A., & Ruppel, S. E. (2001). Representational momentum and Michotte's (1946/1963) "launching effect" paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, 294-301.
15. Hubbard, T. L., & Ruppel, S. E. (2002). A possible role of nai{dotless}̈ve impetus in Michotte's "launching effect" evidence from representational momentum. Visual Cognition, 9, 153-176.
16. Jagacinski, R. J., Johnson, W. W., & Miller, R. A. (1983). Quantifying the cognitive trajectories of extrapolated movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 43-57.
17. Lockman, J. J. (2000). A perception-action perspective on tool use development. Child Development, 71, 137-144.
18. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
19. Natsoulas, T. (1961). Principles of momentum and kinetic energy in the perception of causality. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 394-402.
20. Runeson, S. (1974). Constant velocity*not perceived as such. Psychological Research, 37, 3-23.
21. Runeson, S. (1975). Visual prediction of collision with natural and nonnatural motion functions. Perception and Psychophysics, 18, 261-266.
22. Runeson, S. (1983). On visual perception of dynamic events. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Psychologica Upsaliensia. Uppsala, Sweden.
23. Schlottmann, A., Ray, E., Mitchell, A., & Demetriou, N. (2006). Perceived social and physical causality in animated motions: Spontaneous reports and ratings. Acta Psychologica, 123,112-143.
24. Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 299-309. FORCE IMPRESSIONS 667
25. Turvey, M. T. (1996). Dynamic touch. The American Psychologist, 51, 1134-1152.
26. Watamaniuk, S. N. J., & Heinen, S. J. (2003). Perceptual and oculomotor evidence of limitations on processing accelerating motion. Journal of Vision, 3, 698-709.
27. White, P. A. (2006). The causal asymmetry. Psychological Review, 113, 1320-147.
28. White, P. A. (2007). Impressions of force in visual perception of collision events: A test of the causal asymmetry hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 647-652.
29. White, P. A. (2009). Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. Psychological Review, 116, 580-601.
30. White, P. A. (in press). Judgements about forces in described interactions between objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
31. White, P. A. (2011). Perceiving interactions between objects: The relation between speed of motion and strength of force impression. Cardiff University. Manuscript in preparation.
32. White, P. A., & Milne, A. (1999). Impressions of enforced disintegration and bursting in the visual perception of collision events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128,499-516.
33. White, P. A., & Milne, A. (2003). Visual impressions of penetration in the perception of objects in motion. Visual Cognition, 10, 605-619.
34. Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2001). Motor prediction. Current Biology, 11, R729-R732.