Paradoxical stabilization of relative position in moving frames

Significance Every eye movement drags the visual scene over our retinas and yet nothing appears to move. We now report a small-scale version of this visual stability with a square frame moving on a monitor in a well-lit room. Probes flashed before and after the frame’s motion are also stabilized in the frame’s coordinates—as if the frame were stationary—shifting perceived locations by up to half the screen’s width from their physical locations. Paradoxically, with these small frames, this ∼100% stabilization occurs despite visible frame motion. Unlike motion-induced position shifts, frame-induced shifts are independent of speed and depend instead on the distance the frame travels. This powerful discounting of motion may reveal a critical component of visual stability. To capture where things are and what they are doing, the visual system may extract the position and motion of each object relative to its surrounding frame of reference [K. Duncker, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 161–172 (1929) and G. Johansson, Acta Psychol (Amst.) 7, 25–79 (1950)]. Here we report a particularly powerful example where a paradoxical stabilization is produced by a moving frame. We first take a frame that moves left and right and we flash its right edge before, and its left edge after, the frame’s motion. For all frame displacements tested, the two edges are perceived as stabilized, with the left edge on the left and right edge on the right, separated by the frame’s width as if the frame were not moving. This stabilization is paradoxical because the motion of the frame itself remains visible, albeit much reduced. A second experiment demonstrated that unlike other motion-induced position shifts (e.g., flash lag, flash grab, flash drag, or Fröhlich), the illusory shift here is independent of speed and is set instead by the distance of the frame’s travel. In this experiment, two probes are flashed inside the frame at the same physical location before and after the frame moves. Despite being physically superimposed, the probes are perceived widely separated, again as if they were seen in the frame’s coordinates and the frame were stationary. This paradoxical stabilization suggests a link to visual stability across eye movements where the displacement of the entire visual scene may act as a frame to stabilize the perception of relative locations.

[1]  Marco Piñón.  I Overview , 2020, The Diaries and Letters of Lord Woolton 1940-1945.

[2]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Frame-induced position shifts , 2020 .

[3]  Hinze Hogendoorn.  Motion Extrapolation in Visual Processing: Lessons from 25 Years of Flash-Lag Debate , 2020, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[4]  J. Gray,et al.  PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy , 2019, Behavior Research Methods.

[5]  Robert H Wurtz,et al.  Corollary Discharge Contributions to Perceptual Continuity Across Saccades. , 2018, Annual review of vision science.

[6]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Moving Backgrounds Massively Change the Apparent Size, Shape and Orientation of Flashed Test Squares , 2017, i-Perception.

[7]  M. Morgan,et al.  Tilted frames of reference have similar effects on the perception of gravitational vertical and the planning of vertical saccadic eye movements , 2015, Experimental Brain Research.

[8]  Haluk Öğmen,et al.  Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames , 2015, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[9]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  The flash grab effect , 2012, Vision Research.

[10]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Visual stability based on remapping of attention pointers , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[11]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Landmarks facilitate visual space constancy across saccades and during fixation , 2010, Vision Research.

[12]  Stuart Anstis,et al.  Perceived shrinkage of motion paths. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Heiner Deubel,et al.  Post-saccadic location judgments reveal remapping of saccade targets to non-foveal locations. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[14]  Dale Purves,et al.  An empirical explanation of the flash-lag effect , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  R. Wurtz.  Neuronal mechanisms of visual stability , 2008, Vision Research.

[16]  R. B. Post,et al.  Egocentric and allocentric localization during induced motion , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  Terrence J Sejnowski,et al.  Motion signals bias localization judgments: a unified explanation for the flash-lag, flash-drag, flash-jump, and Frohlich illusions. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[18]  F. Ostendorf,et al.  Perisaccadic mislocalization without saccadic eye movements , 2006, Neuroscience.

[19]  David Whitney,et al.  Contribution of bottom-up and top-down motion processes to perceived position. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  David Whitney,et al.  The influence of visual motion on perceived position , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  David Whitney,et al.  Motion distorts visual space: shifting the perceived position of remote stationary objects , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  A jitter after-effect reveals motion-based stabilization of vision , 1998, Nature.

[23]  M. Concetta Morrone,et al.  Apparent Position of Visual Targets during Real and Simulated Saccadic Eye Movements , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  H. Honda,et al.  Visual mislocalization produced by a rapid image displacement on the retina: Examination by means of dichoptic presentation of a target and its background scene , 1995, Vision Research.

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

[26]  J. O'Regan,et al.  Solving the "real" mysteries of visual perception: the world as an outside memory. , 1992, Canadian journal of psychology.

[27]  C. R. Fox,et al.  Visually perceived eye level and perceived elevation of objects: Linearly additive influences from visual field pitch and from gravity , 1989, Vision Research.

[28]  A. Wertheim,et al.  Retinal and Extraretinal Information in Movement Perception: How to Invert the Filehne Illusion , 1987, Perception.

[29]  Terry A. Bahill,et al.  Variability and development of a normative data base for saccadic eye movements. , 1981, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[30]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Relative motion induced between stationary lines , 1978, Vision Research.

[31]  R. C. Emerson,et al.  Paralysis of the awake human: Visual perceptions , 1976, Vision Research.

[32]  D. M. MACKAY,et al.  Mislocation of Test Flashes during Saccadic Image Displacements , 1970, Nature.

[33]  Arien Mack,et al.  Perceived movement of the afterimage during eye movements , 1969 .

[34]  H. Wallach.  The perception of motion. , 1959, Scientific American.

[35]  R. W. DITCHBURN,et al.  Vision with a Stabilized Retinal Image , 1952, Nature.

[36]  H. A. Witkin,et al.  Studies in space orientation; perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[37]  B. Bridgeman.  Space and Time in Perception and Action: Space constancy: the rise and fall of perceptual compensation , 2010 .

[38]  Regan,et al.  Retinal versus extraretinal influences in flash localization during saccadic eye movements in the presence of a visible background , 2007 .

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

[40]  A. Reinhardt-Rutland,et al.  Induced movement in the visual modality: an overview. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[41]  A Mack,et al.  Saccadic programming and perceived location. , 1981, Acta psychologica.

[42]  Donald M. MacKay,et al.  Visual Stability and Voluntary Eye Movements , 1973 .

[43]  G. Johansson,et al.  Configurations in the perception of velocity , 1950 .

[44]  C. O. Roelofs,et al.  Die optische Lokalisation. , 1935 .

[45]  H. C. Warren.  Sensations of rotation. , 1895 .