The position of moving objects.

Moving objects occupy a range of positions during the period of integration of the visual system. Nevertheless, a unique position is usually observed. We investigate how the trajectory of a stimulus influences the position at which the object is seen. It has been shown before that moving objects are perceived ahead of static objects shown at the same place and time. We show here that this perceived position difference builds up over the first 500 ms of a visible trajectory. Discontinuities in the visual input reduce this buildup when the presentation frequency of a stimulus with a duration of 42 ms falls below 16 Hz. We interpret this relative mislocalization in terms of a spatiotemporal-filtering model. This model fits well with the data, given two assumptions. First, the position signal persists even though the objects are no longer visible and, second, the perceived distance is a 500 ms average of the difference of these position signals.

[1]  W. Metzger,et al.  Versuch einer gemeinsamen Theorie der Phänomene Fröhlichs und Hazelhoffs und Kritik ihrer Verfahren zur Messung der Empfindungszeit , 1932 .

[2]  H. Barlow.  Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different background intensities , 1958, The Journal of physiology.

[3]  D. Mackay.  Perceptual Stability of a Stroboscopically Lit Visual Field containing Self-Luminous Objects , 1958, Nature.

[4]  Jaj Jacques Roufs,et al.  Perception lag as a function of stimulus luminance , 1963 .

[5]  M. Morgan,et al.  Perception of continuity in stroboscopic motion: A temporal frequency analysis , 1979, Vision Research.

[6]  D. Burr.  Motion smear , 1980, Nature.

[7]  T. Poggio,et al.  Visual hyperacuity: spatiotemporal interpolation in human vision , 1981, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[8]  D. Burr.  Temporal summation of moving images by the human visual system , 1981, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[9]  R. J. Watt,et al.  On the failure of spatiotemporal interpolation: A filtering model , 1983, Vision Research.

[10]  John H Hogben,et al.  Suppression of visible persistence. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  V. Lollo,et al.  Suppression of visible persistence in apparent motion , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  M. Lévesque.  Perception , 1986, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[13]  D. Burr,et al.  Feature detection in human vision: a phase-dependent energy model , 1988, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[14]  J. Duysens,et al.  Temporal integration in cat visual cortex: A test of bloch's law , 1991, Vision Research.

[15]  Romi Nijhawan,et al.  Motion extrapolation in catching , 1994, Nature.

[16]  Eric Castet,et al.  Effect of the ISI on the visible persistence of a stimulus in apparent motion , 1994, Vision Research.

[17]  Harold E. Bedell,et al.  A target in real motion appears blurred in the absence of other proximal moving targets , 1995, Vision Research.

[18]  Stanley A. Klein,et al.  Extrapolation or attention shift? , 1995, Nature.

[19]  I. Murakami,et al.  Latency difference, not spatial extrapolation , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[20]  Gopathy Purushothaman,et al.  Moving ahead through differential visual latency , 1998, Nature.

[21]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  An optimal estimation approach to visual perception and learning , 1999, Vision Research.

[22]  Markus Lappe,et al.  Temporal recruitment along the trajectory of moving objects and the perception of position , 1999, Vision Research.

[23]  Kuno Kirschfeld,et al.  The Fröhlich effect: a consequence of the interaction of visual focal attention and metacontrast , 1999, Vision Research.

[24]  T J Sejnowski,et al.  Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness. , 2000, Science.

[25]  Markus Lappe,et al.  The Position of Moving Objects , 1998, Science.

[26]  R Nijhawan,et al.  The Role of Attention in Motion Extrapolation: Are Moving Objects ‘Corrected’ or Flashed Objects Attentionally Delayed? , 2000, Perception.

[27]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Illusory spatial offset of a flash relative to a moving stimulus is caused by differential latencies for moving and flashed stimuli , 2000, Vision Research.

[28]  E. Brenner,et al.  Motion extrapolation is not responsible for the flash–lag effect , 2000, Vision Research.

[29]  Markus Lappe,et al.  A model of the perceived relative positions of moving objects based upon a slow averaging process , 2000, Vision Research.

[30]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Changing objects lead briefly flashed ones , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.