The Evolution of Explanations of a Perceptual Phenomenon: A Case History Using the Ternus Effect

The Ternus effect involves a multi-element stimulus that can lead to either of two different percepts of apparent movement depending upon a variety of stimulus conditions. Since Ternus's 1926 discussion of this phenomenon, many researchers have attempted to explain it. We examine the history of explanations of the Ternus effect and show that they have evolved to contemporary theoretical positions that are very similar to Ternus's own ideas. Additionally, we describe a new experiment showing that theoretical positions that emphasize element grouping and element identity within groups can predict the effects of certain stimulus manipulations on the Ternus effect.

[1]  Petersik Jt,et al.  Comments on Cavanagh and Mather (1989): Coming up short (and long) , 1991 .

[2]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Attention-based motion perception. , 1992, Science.

[3]  Robert Patterson,et al.  The cyclopean ternus display and the perception of element versus group movement , 1991, Vision Research.

[4]  J. T. Petersik.  Conceptualizations of Short-Range and Long-Range Processes in Apparent Movement , 1994 .

[5]  Jean Lorenceau,et al.  Perceptual grouping in the Ternus display: evidence for an `association field' in apparent motion , 2002, Vision Research.

[6]  Lloyd Kaufman,et al.  Sight and mind , 1974 .

[7]  Stephen Grossberg,et al.  Neural dynamics of motion integration and segmentation within and across apertures , 2001, Vision Research.

[8]  Oliver Braddick,et al.  Apparent motion and the motion detector , 1978 .

[9]  B. Breitmeyer,et al.  Spatial frequency and contrast effects on percepts of bistable stroboscopic motion , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Bruno G. Breitmeyer,et al.  The role of visual pattern persistence in bistable stroboscopic motion , 1986, Vision Research.

[11]  F. Ramus,et al.  Developmental dyslexia : specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction ? , 2003 .

[12]  B. Skottun.  On the use of the Ternus Test to Assess Magnocellular Function , 2001, Perception.

[13]  C. Casco.  The Relationship between Visual Persistence and Event Perception in Bistable Motion Display , 1990, Perception.

[14]  J. Timothy Petersik,et al.  Factors controlling the competing sensations produced by a bistable stroboscopic motion display , 1979, Vision Research.

[15]  Hans Wallach.  Über visuell wahrgenommene Bewegungsrichtung , 1935 .

[16]  The effects of dichoptic and binocular viewing on bistable motion percepts , 1989, Vision Research.

[17]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[18]  S. Grossberg.  Why do parallel cortical systems exist for the perception of static form and moving form? , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[20]  Stephen Grossberg,et al.  A neural architecture for visual motion perception: group and element apparent motion , 1989, International 1989 Joint Conference on Neural Networks.

[21]  J T Petersik.  The two-process distinction in apparent motion. , 1989, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  O. Braddick.  A short-range process in apparent motion. , 1974, Vision research.

[23]  S. Yantis,et al.  Perceptual grouping in space and time: Evidence from the Ternus display , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  D. Teller.  Linking propositions , 1984, Vision Research.

[25]  Michael R. W. Dawson,et al.  Polarity matching in the Ternus configuration , 1994, Vision Research.

[26]  C. Pléh.  HUNGARIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO MODERN PSYCHOLOGY* , 2008 .

[27]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Perceptual Organization of Apparent Motion in the Ternus Display , 1999, Perception.

[28]  W. Slaghuis,et al.  Visual and Language Processing Disorders are Concurrent in Dyslexia and Continue into Adulthood , 1996, Cortex.

[29]  J T Petersik,et al.  Effects of spatial parameters on the perceptual organization of a bistable motion display , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  Michael R. W. Dawson,et al.  Simultaneity in the Ternus configuration: psychophysical data and a computer model , 1994, Vision Research.

[31]  B G Breitmeyer,et al.  Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing. , 1976, Psychological review.

[32]  J. T. Petersik.  A comparison of varieties of “second-order” motion , 1995, Vision Research.

[33]  E. Boring.  Sensation and Perception. (Scientific Books: Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology) , 1943 .

[34]  David S. Brée,et al.  Linking Propositions , 1986, COLING.

[35]  B. Breitmeyer,et al.  Visual persistence and the effect of eccentric viewing, element size, and frame duration on bistable stroboscopic motion percepts , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  S. Grossberg,et al.  Cortical dynamics of visual motion perception: short-range and long-range apparent motion. , 1992, Psychological review.

[37]  M. Coltheart,et al.  The relationship between language-processing and visual-processing deficits in developmental dyslexia , 1999, Cognition.

[38]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition : Psychological and Biological Models , 1986 .

[39]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Short-range vs long-range motion: not a valid distinction. , 1991, Spatial vision.

[40]  Robert F. Hess,et al.  What does the Ternus Display Tell us about Motion Processing in Human Vision? , 2001 .

[41]  Petersik Jt.  The two-process distinction in apparent motion. , 1989 .

[42]  J. Moran,et al.  Sensation and perception , 1980 .

[43]  M. Dawson,et al.  The how and why of what went where in apparent motion: modeling solutions to the motion correspondence problem. , 1991, Psychological review.

[44]  O. Braddick.  The masking of apparent motion in random-dot patterns. , 1973, Vision research.

[45]  F. Attneave.  Multistability in perception. , 1971, Scientific American.

[46]  Michael D. Dodd,et al.  An illusion of 3-D motion with the Ternus display , 2005, Vision Research.

[47]  N E Scott-Samuel,et al.  What does the Ternus Display Tell us about Motion Processing in Human Vision? , 2001, Perception.

[48]  P Kramer,et al.  Visible persistence and form correspondence in Ternus apparent motion , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[49]  P. A. Kolers.  Aspects of motion perception , 1972 .

[50]  S. Ullman,et al.  The interpretation of visual motion , 1977 .

[51]  D. Tolhurst.  Sustained and transient channels in human vision , 1975, Vision Research.

[52]  S. Palmer,et al.  Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[53]  A. Pantle,et al.  Apparent Movement of Successively Generated Subjective Figures , 1978, Perception.

[54]  O J Braddick,et al.  Low-level and high-level processes in apparent motion. , 1980, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[55]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Motion: the long and short of it. , 1989, Spatial vision.

[56]  E. Boring.  Sensation and Perception. (Scientific Books: Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology) , 1943 .