Apparent motion can impair and enhance target visibility: the role of shape in predicting and postdicting object continuity.

Peter J Lenkic, James T Enns
Author Information
  1. Peter J Lenkic: Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Abstract

Some previous studies have reported that the visibility of a target in the path of an apparent motion sequence is impaired; other studies have reported that it is facilitated. Here we test whether the relation of shape similarity between the inducing and target stimuli has an influence on visibility. Reasoning from a theoretical framework in which there are both predictive and postdictive influences on shape perception, we report experiments involving three-frame apparent motion sequences. In these experiments, we systematically varied the congruence between target shapes and contextual shapes (preceding and following). Experiment 1 established the baseline visibility of the target, when it was presented in isolation and when it was preceded or followed by a single contextual shape. This set the stage for Experiment 2, where the shape congruence between the target and both contextual shapes was varied orthogonally. The results showed a remarkable degree of synergy between predictive and postdictive influences, allowing a backward-masked shape that was almost invisible when presented in isolation to be discriminated with a d' of 2 when either of the contextual shapes are congruent. In Experiment 3 participants performed a shape-feature detection task with the same stimuli, with the results indicating that the predictive and postdictive effects were now absent. This finding confirms that shape congruence effects on visibility are specific to shape perception and are not due to either general alerting effects for objects in the path of a motion signal nor to low-level perceptual filling-in.

Keywords

References

  1. Vision Res. 2007 Dec;47(28):3424-33 [PMID: 18053847]
  2. Science. 2000 Mar 17;287(5460):2036-8 [PMID: 10720334]
  3. Vision Res. 2012 Apr 15;59:25-33 [PMID: 22406661]
  4. Perception. 2009;38(1):5-16 [PMID: 19323132]
  5. Vision Res. 1985;25(2):283-8 [PMID: 4013094]
  6. Exp Brain Res. 1988;70(1):90-8 [PMID: 3402571]
  7. Percept Psychophys. 1984 Jan;35(1):69-84 [PMID: 6324063]
  8. Neuroreport. 2005 Apr 4;16(5):491-4 [PMID: 15770157]
  9. Vision Res. 1976;16(4):329-35 [PMID: 941407]
  10. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):106-20 [PMID: 12669751]
  11. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):489-96 [PMID: 12412888]
  12. Percept Psychophys. 2000 Nov;62(8):1572-95 [PMID: 11140180]
  13. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Sep;19(9):1488-97 [PMID: 17714010]
  14. Sci Am. 1986 Jun;254(6):102-9 [PMID: 3704621]
  15. Neuroimage. 2004 Apr;21(4):1772-80 [PMID: 15050597]
  16. J Vis. 2006 Sep 22;6(10):1079-86 [PMID: 17132079]
  17. Neuroimage. 2006 Sep;32(3):1308-16 [PMID: 16822682]
  18. Vision Res. 2007 Jun;47(12):1624-30 [PMID: 17451777]
  19. Curr Biol. 2011 May 10;21(9):740-5 [PMID: 21514158]
  20. Vision Res. 2000;40(2):201-15 [PMID: 10793897]
  21. Cereb Cortex. 1991 Jan-Feb;1(1):1-47 [PMID: 1822724]
  22. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Dec;31(6):1171-1180 [PMID: 16366782]
  23. Vision Res. 2008 Mar;48(7):872-81 [PMID: 18279906]
  24. J Vis. 2012 Jul 30;12(7): [PMID: 22847807]
  25. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Dec;129(4):481-507 [PMID: 11142864]
  26. Nature. 1994 Jul 28;370(6487):256-7 [PMID: 8035873]
  27. Nat Neurosci. 1998 Oct;1(6):508-12 [PMID: 10196549]
  28. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Dec;33(6):1495-503 [PMID: 18085959]
  29. Cognition. 2010 Apr;115(1):186-91 [PMID: 20035933]
  30. PLoS Biol. 2005 Aug;3(8):e265 [PMID: 16018720]
  31. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Dec;32(6):1422-35 [PMID: 17154782]
  32. J Vis. 2011 Sep 07;11(10): [PMID: 21900370]
  33. J Exp Psychol. 1971 Jan;87(1):99-108 [PMID: 5541564]
  34. Vision Res. 1963 May-Jun;61:191-206 [PMID: 14168288]
  35. Curr Biol. 2003 Jun 17;13(12):1038-41 [PMID: 12814549]
  36. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Sep;12(9):327-33 [PMID: 18684660]
  37. J Vis. 2010 Nov 24;10(13):15 [PMID: 21106680]
  38. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Sep;4(9):345-352 [PMID: 10962616]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0shapetargetmotionvisibilityshapescontextualapparentpredictivepostdictiveperceptioncongruenceExperimenteffectsstudiesreportedpathstimuliinfluencesexperimentsvariedpresentedisolation2resultseitherprevioussequenceimpairedfacilitatedtestwhetherrelationsimilarityinducinginfluenceReasoningtheoreticalframeworkreportinvolvingthree-framesequencessystematicallyprecedingfollowing1establishedbaselineprecededfollowedsinglesetstageorthogonallyshowedremarkabledegreesynergyallowingbackward-maskedalmostinvisiblediscriminatedd'congruent3participantsperformedshape-featuredetectiontaskindicatingnowabsentfindingconfirmsspecificduegeneralalertingobjectssignallow-levelperceptualfilling-inApparentcanimpairenhancevisibility:rolepredictingpostdictingobjectcontinuitypostdictionpredictionvisualmasking

Similar Articles

Cited By