Motion Perception: A Modern View of Wertheimer's 1912 Monograph

Max Wertheimer's 1912 monograph on apparent motion is a seminal contribution to the study of visual motion, but its actual contents are not widely known. This article attempts to clarify what the monograph did and did not contribute, emphasizing links between Wertheimer's principal findings and the results of subsequent investigations of motion perception, including currently active lines of research. The topics discussed include Wertheimer's experimental tests of explanations for apparent motion; his work with motion phenomena that lie between succession and optimum motion; his studies of the influence of attention on motion; explorations of various forms of hysteresis and motion transparency; and Wertheimer's work with a motion-blind patient.

[1]  S. Zeki,et al.  Cerebral akinetopsia (visual motion blindness). A review. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[2]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Hysteresis in the perception of motion direction as evidence for neural cooperativity , 1986, Nature.

[3]  W. Metzger.  Beobachtungen über phänomenale Identität , 1934 .

[4]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Window of visibility: a psychophysical theory of fidelity in time-sampled visual motion displays , 1986 .

[5]  V. Sarris,et al.  Max Wertheimer on seen motion: Theory and evidence , 1989, Psychological research.

[6]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Assimilation and contrast in motion perception: Explorations in cooperativity , 1990, Vision Research.

[7]  Mark Nawrot,et al.  Motion perception deficits from midline cerebellar lesions in human , 1995, Vision Research.

[8]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The aperture problem—I. Perception of nonrigidity and motion direction in translating sinusoidal lines , 1988, Vision Research.

[9]  B. Julesz,et al.  Cooperative phenomena in apparent movement perception of random-dot cinematograms , 1984, Vision Research.

[10]  O. Hikosaka,et al.  Voluntary and Stimulus-Induced Attention Detected as Motion Sensation , 1993, Perception.

[11]  Robert Sekuler,et al.  Motion Perception as a Partnership: Exogenous and Endogenous Contributions , 1995 .

[12]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Intact “biological motion” and “structure from motion” perception in a patient with impaired motion mechanisms: A case study , 1990, Visual Neuroscience.

[13]  S. Watamaniuk.  Ideal observer for discrimination of the global direction of dynamic random-dot stimuli. , 1993, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[14]  H. R. Silva.  AN ANALYSIS OF THE VISUAL PERCEPTION OF MOVEMENT1 , 1929 .

[15]  P. A. Kolers.  SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REAL AND APPARENT VISUAL MOVEMENT. , 1963, Vision research.

[16]  O. Hikosaka,et al.  Focal visual attention produces illusory temporal order and motion sensation , 1993, Vision Research.

[17]  G. Sperling,et al.  Drift-balanced random stimuli: a general basis for studying non-Fourier motion perception. , 1988, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[18]  R L Gregory,et al.  On how little information controls so much behaviour. , 1970, Ergonomics.

[19]  J. Faubert,et al.  Processing Speed in the Motion-Induction Effect , 1995, Perception.

[20]  O. Braddick,et al.  What is Noise for the Motion System? , 1996, Vision Research.

[21]  W. Köhler.  Die physischen Gestalten in Ruhe und im stationären Zustand : eine naturphilosophische Untersuchung , 1920 .

[22]  O. Braddick,et al.  Integration across Directions in Dynamic Random Dot Displays: Vector Summation or Winner Take All? , 1996, Vision Research.

[23]  R. Andersen,et al.  Transparent motion perception as detection of unbalanced motion signals. II. Physiology , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[24]  A Pantle,et al.  A multistable movement display: evidence for two separate motion systems in human vision. , 1976, Science.

[25]  O. Braddick.  Segmentation versus integration in visual motion processing , 1993, Trends in Neurosciences.

[26]  N. Mai,et al.  Selective disturbance of movement vision after bilateral brain damage. , 1983, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[27]  Josef Ternus,et al.  The problem of phenomenal identity. , 1938 .

[28]  N Mai,et al.  Disturbance of movement vision after bilateral posterior brain damage. Further evidence and follow up observations. , 1991, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[29]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The aperture problem—II. Spatial integration of velocity information along contours , 1988, Vision Research.

[30]  J R Pomerantz,et al.  Models of illusory pausing and sticking. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  E. Adelson,et al.  Phenomenal coherence of moving visual patterns , 1982, Nature.

[32]  B I Bertenthal,et al.  Directional Bias in the Perception of Translating Patterns , 1993, Perception.

[33]  R A Andersen,et al.  Transparent motion perception as detection of unbalanced motion signals. I. Psychophysics , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[34]  W. Newsome,et al.  Motion selectivity in macaque visual cortex. III. Psychophysics and physiology of apparent motion. , 1986, Journal of neurophysiology.

[35]  J. Ternus.  Experimentelle Untersuchungen über phänomenale Identität , 1926 .

[36]  A. Sekuler.  Simple-pooling of unidirectional motion predicts speed discrimination for looming stimuli , 1992, Vision Research.

[37]  W. Newsome,et al.  Motion selectivity in macaque visual cortex. I. Mechanisms of direction and speed selectivity in extrastriate area MT. , 1986, Journal of neurophysiology.

[38]  H. R. Desilva.  Kinematographic Movement of Parallel Lines , 1928 .

[39]  D. Teller.  3 – THE DOMAIN OF VISUAL SCIENCE , 1990 .

[40]  O E Favreau,et al.  Perceived velocity of moving chromatic gratings. , 1984, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.