Stream/bounce event perception reveals a temporal limit of motion correspondence based on surface feature over space and time.

Yousuke Kawachi, Takahiro Kawabe, Jiro Gyoba
Author Information
  1. Yousuke Kawachi: Kansei Fukushi Research Institute, Tohoku Fukushi University, 6-149-1, Kunimigaoka, Aoba-ku, Sendai 989-3201, Japan; e-mail: yousuke.kawachi@gmail.com.

Abstract

We examined how stream/bounce event perception is affected by motion correspondence based on the surface features of moving objects passing behind an occlusion. In the stream/bounce display two identical objects moving across each other in a two-dimensional display can be perceived as either streaming through or bouncing off each other at coincidence. Here, surface features such as colour (Experiments 1 and 2) or luminance (Experiment 3) were switched between the two objects at coincidence. The moment of coincidence was invisible to observers due to an occluder. Additionally, the presentation of the moving objects was manipulated in duration after the feature switch at coincidence. The results revealed that a postcoincidence duration of approximately 200 ms was required for the visual system to stabilize judgments of stream/bounce events by determining motion correspondence between the objects across the occlusion on the basis of the surface feature. The critical duration was similar across motion speeds of objects and types of surface features. Moreover, controls (Experiments 4a-4c) showed that cognitive bias based on feature (colour/luminance) congruency across the occlusion could not fully account for the effects of surface features on the stream/bounce judgments. We discuss the roles of motion correspondence, visual feature processing, and attentive tracking in the stream/bounce judgments.

Keywords

References

  1. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 May;13(5):216-21 [PMID: 19386535]
  2. Perception. 1998;27(9):1041-54 [PMID: 10341934]
  3. Vision Res. 2005 Nov;45(24):3015-26 [PMID: 16102796]
  4. Perception. 1993;22(2):193-207 [PMID: 8474844]
  5. Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1314-29 [PMID: 11800459]
  6. Percept Psychophys. 2001 Jan;63(1):16-28 [PMID: 11304012]
  7. Cognition. 2006 Mar;99(2):131-65 [PMID: 16545625]
  8. Vision Res. 2007 Apr;47(8):1055-9 [PMID: 17208269]
  9. Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1293-313 [PMID: 11800458]
  10. Science. 1988 May 6;240(4853):740-9 [PMID: 3283936]
  11. Vision Res. 2006 May;46(11):1848-55 [PMID: 16387343]
  12. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1982 Aug;8(4):547-61 [PMID: 6214607]
  13. Perception. 1999;28(4):415-32 [PMID: 10664783]
  14. Percept Psychophys. 2006 Jul;68(5):750-8 [PMID: 17076343]
  15. Vis Neurosci. 2004 May-Jun;21(3):327-30 [PMID: 15518208]
  16. J Vis. 2004 Jul 20;4(7):585-603 [PMID: 15330704]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stream/bouncemotionsurfaceobjectscorrespondencefeaturesfeatureacrosscoincidencebasedmovingocclusiondurationvisualjudgmentseventperceptiondisplaytwoExperimentsexaminedaffectedpassingbehindidenticaltwo-dimensionalcanperceivedeitherstreamingbouncingcolour12luminanceExperiment3switchedmomentinvisibleobserversdueoccluderAdditionallypresentationmanipulatedswitchresultsrevealedpostcoincidenceapproximately200msrequiredsystemstabilizeeventsdeterminingbasiscriticalsimilarspeedstypesMoreovercontrols4a-4cshowedcognitivebiascolour/luminancecongruencyfullyaccounteffectsdiscussrolesprocessingattentivetrackingStream/bouncerevealstemporallimitspacetimepercepts

Similar Articles

Cited By (5)