Evidence for scene-based motion correspondence

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Elisabeth Hein (1)
  Cathleen M. Moore (2)
  
• 关键词：Apparent motion ; Perceptual organization ; Ternus display
• 刊名：Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：April 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：76
• 期：3
• 页码：793-804
• 全文大小：705 KB
• 参考文献：1. Adelson, E. H., & Bergen, J. R. (1985). Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. / Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2, 284-99. CrossRef
  2. Aks, D. J., & Enns, J. T. (1996). Visual search for size is influenced by a background texture gradient. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1467-481. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1467
  3. Alais, D., & Lorenceau, J. (2002). Perceptual grouping in the Ternus display: Evidence for an “association field-in apparent motion. / Vision Research, 42, 1005-016. CrossRef
  4. Boi, M., O?men, H., Krummenacher, J., Otto, T. U., & Herzog, M. H. (2009). A (fascinating) litmus test for human retino- vs. non-retinotopic processing. / Journal of Vision, 9(13), 5. doi:10.1167/9.13.5 . 1-1. CrossRef
  5. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. / Spatial Vision, 10, 433-36. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357 CrossRef
  6. Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ritter, A. (1986a). The role of visual pattern persistence in bistable stroboscopic motion. / Vision Research, 26, 1801-806. CrossRef
  7. Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ritter, A. (1986b). Visual persistence and the effect of eccentric viewing, element size, and frame duration on bistable stroboscopic motion percepts. / Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 275-80. CrossRef
  8. Casco, C. (1990). The relationship between visual persistence and event perception in bistable motion display. / Perception, 19, 437-45. CrossRef
  9. Cavanagh, P. (1992). Attention-based motion perception. / Science, 257, 1563-565. doi:10.1126/science.1523411 CrossRef
  10. Davis, G., & Driver, J. (1994). Parallel detection of Kanizsa subjective figures in the human visual system. / Nature, 371, 791-93. CrossRef
  11. Dawson, M., Nevin-Meadows, N., & Wright, R. (1994). Polarity matching in the Ternus configuration. / Vision Research, 34, 3347-359. CrossRef
  12. Enns, J. T., Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2010). Object updating: A force for perceptual continuity and scene stability in human vision. In R. Nijhawan & B. Khurana (Eds.), / Space and time in perception and action (pp. 503-20). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
  13. Flombaum, J. I., Scholl, B. J., & Santos, L. R. (2009). Spatiotemporal priority as a fundamental principle of object persistence. In B. Hood & L. Santos (Eds.), / The origins of object knowledge (pp. 135-64). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
  14. Green, M. (1989). Color correspondence in apparent motion. / Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 15-0. CrossRef
  15. He, Z. J., & Nakayama, K. (1992). Surfaces versus features in visual search. / Nature, 359, 231-33. CrossRef
  16. He, Z. J., & Nakayama, K. (1994). Surface shape not features determine motion correspondence. / Vision Research, 4, 2125-136. CrossRef
  17. He, Z., & Ooi, T. (1999). Perceptual organization of apparent motion in the Ternus display. / Perception, 28, 877-92. CrossRef
  18. Hein, E., & Cavanagh, P. (2012). Motion correspondence shows feature bias in spatiotopic coordinates. / Journal of Vision, 12(7), 16. doi:10.1167/12.7.16 . 1-4. CrossRef
  19. Hein, E., & Moore, C. M. (2009a). / The role of scene-based versus image-based information in motion correspondence. Poster presented at the 32nd European Conference on Visual Perception, Regensburg, Germany.
  20. Hein, E., & Moore, C. M. (2009b). The effect of perceived size on Ternus motion. Unpublished raw data.
  21. Hein, E., & Moore, C. M. (2010). The effect of a filter on Ternus motion. Unpublished raw data.
  22. Hein, E., & Moore, C. M. (2012). Spatio-temporal priority revisited: The role of feature identity and similarity for object correspondence in apparent motion. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 975-88.
  23. Hollingworth, A., & Franconeri, S. L. (2009). The role of surface features in establishing object correspondence. / Cognition, 113, 150-66. CrossRef
  24. Hollingworth, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2010). Binding objects to locations: The relationship between object files and visual working memory. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 543-64. doi:10.1037/a0017836
  25. Hollingworth, A., Richard, A. M., & Luck, S. J. (2008). Understanding the function of visual short-term memory: Transsaccadic memory, object correspondence, and gaze correction. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 163-81. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.1.163 CrossRef
  26. Kramer, P., & Rudd, M. (1999). Visible persistence and form correspondence in Ternus apparent motion. / Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 952-62. doi:10.3758/BF03206909 CrossRef
  27. Kramer, P., & Yantis, S. (1997). Perceptual grouping in space and time: Evidence from the Ternus display. / Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 87-9. doi:10.3758/BF03206851 CrossRef
  28. Ma-Wyatt, A., Clifford, C., & Wenderoth, P. (2005). Contrast configuration influences grouping in apparent motion. / Perception, 34, 669-85. CrossRef
  29. Mamassian, P., & Sinha, P. (2001). Apparent motion from apparent brightness. / Journal of Vision, 1(3), 276a. doi:10.1167/1.3.276 CrossRef
  30. Moore, C. M., & Brown, L. E. (2001). Preconstancy information can influence visual search: The case of lightness constancy. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 178-94.
  31. Moore, C. M., Stephens, T., & Hein, E. (2010). Features, as well as space and time, guide object persistence. / Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 731-36. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.5.731 CrossRef
  32. Navon, D. (1976). Irrelevance of figural identity for resolving ambiguities in apparent motion. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 130-38.
  33. Nishida, S., & Takeuchi, T. (1990). The effects of luminance on affinity of apparent motion. / Vision Research, 30, 709-21. CrossRef
  34. Palmer, S. E., Neff, J., & Beck, D. (1996). Late influences on perceptual grouping: Amodal completion. / Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 75-0. CrossRef
  35. Pantle, A., & Petersik, J. (1980). Effects of spatial parameters on the perceptual organization of a bistable motion display. / Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 307-12. CrossRef
  36. Pantle, A., & Picciano, L. (1976). A multistable movement display: Evidence for two separate motion systems in human vision. / Science, 193, 500-02. CrossRef
  37. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. / Spatial Vision, 10, 437-42. doi:10.1163/156856897X00366 CrossRef
  38. Petersik, J., & Pantle, A. (1979). Factors controlling the competing sensations produced by a bistable stroboscopic motion display. / Vision Research, 19, 143-54. CrossRef
  39. Petersik, J., & Rice, C. (2008). Spatial correspondence and relation correspondence: Grouping factors that influence perception of the Ternus display. / Perception, 37, 725-39. CrossRef
  40. Pikler, J. (1917). / Sinnesphysiologische Untersuchungen. Leipzig, Germany: Barth.
  41. Pooresmaeili, A., Cicchini, G. M., Morrone, M. C., & Burr, D. (2012). “Non-retinotopic processing-in Ternus motion displays modeled by spatiotemporal filters. / Journal of Vision, 12(1), 10. doi:10.1167/12.1.10 . 1-5. CrossRef
  42. Ramachandran, V. S., & Anstis, S. M. (1983). Perceptual organization in moving patterns. / Nature, 304, 529-31. CrossRef
  43. Reichardt, W. (1961). Autocorrelation, a principle for the evaluation of sensory information. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.), / Sensory communication (pp. 303-17). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  44. Richard, A. M., Luck, S. J., & Hollingworth, A. (2008). Establishing object correspondence across eye movements: Flexible use of spatiotemporal and surface feature information. / Cognition, 109, 66-8. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.004 CrossRef
  45. Rock, I., Nijhawan, R., Palmer, S., & Tudor, L. (1992). Grouping based on phenomenal similarity of achromatic color. / Perception, 21, 779-89. CrossRef
  46. Scholl, B. (2001). Spatio-temporal priority and object identity. / Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 20, 359-71.
  47. Tas, C. A., Dodd, M. T., & Hollingworth, A. (2012). The role of surface feature continuity in object-based inhibition of return. / Visual Cognition, 20, 29-7. CrossRef
  48. Ternus, J. (1926). Experimentelle Untersuchungen über ph?nomenale Identit?t. / Psychologische Forschung, / 7, 81-36. Translated to English in W. D. Ellis (Ed.), 1950. / A sourcebook of Gestalt Psychology. New York, NY: Humanities Press.
  49. Ullman, S. (1979). / The interpretation of visual motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  50. Van Santen, J. P. H., & Sperling, G. (1985). Elaborated Reichardt detectors. / Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2, 300-21. CrossRef
  51. Wallace, J., & Scott-Samuel, N. (2007). Spatial versus temporal grouping in a modified Ternus display. / Vision Research, 47, 2353-366. CrossRef
  52. Watson, A. B., Ahumada, A. J., Jr., & Farrell, J. E. (1986). Window of visibility: A psychophysical theory of fidelity in time-sampled visual motion displays. / Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 3, 300-07. doi:10.1364/JOSAA.3.000300 CrossRef
  53. Werkhoven, P., Sperling, G., & Chubb, C. (1993). The dimensionality of texture-defined motion: A single channel theory. / Vision Research, 33, 463-85. CrossRef
  54. Werkhoven, P., Sperling, G., & Chubb, C. (1994). Perception of apparent motion between dissimilar gratings: Spatiotemporal properties. / Vision Research, 34, 2741-759. CrossRef
  55. Yantis, S. (1995). Perceived continuity of occluded visual objects. / Psychological Science, 6, 182-86. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00329.x CrossRef
  56. Yantis, S., & Nakama, T. (1998). Visual interactions in the path of apparent motion. / Nature Neuroscience, 1, 508-12. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Elisabeth Hein (1)
  Cathleen M. Moore (2)
  
  1. Evolutionary Cognition, Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Schleichstr. 4, 72076, Tübingen, Germany
  2. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
  
• ISSN：1943-393X

文摘

To maintain stable object representations as our eyes or the objects themselves move, the visual system must determine how newly sampled information relates to existing object representations. To solve this correspondence problem, the visual system uses not only spatiotemporal information (e.g., the spatial and temporal proximity between elements), but also feature information (e.g., the similarity in size or luminance between elements). Here we asked whether motion correspondence relies solely on image-based feature information, or whether it is influenced by scene-based information (e.g., the perceived sizes of surfaces or the perceived illumination conditions). We manipulated scene-based information separately from image-based information in the Ternus display, an ambiguous apparent-motion display, and found that scene-based information influences how motion correspondence is resolved, indicating that theories of motion correspondence that are based on “scene-blind-mechanisms are insufficient.