A motion-induced position shift that depends on motion both before and after the test probe

Two versions of the flash grab illusion were used to examine the relative contributions of motion before and motion after the test flash to the illusory position shift. The stimulus in the first two experiments was a square pattern that expanded and contracted with an outline square flashed each time the motion reversed producing a dramatic difference in perceived size between the two reversals. Experiment 1 showed a strong illusion when motion was present before and after the flashed tests or just after the flashes, but no significant effect when only the pre-flash motion was present. In Experiment 2, motion always followed the flash, and the duration of the pre-flash motion was varied. The results showed a significant increase in illusion strength with the duration of pre-flash motion and the effect of the pre-flash motion was almost 50% that of the post-flash motion. Finally, Experiment 3 tested the position shifts when the linear motion of a disk before the flash was orthogonal to its motion after the flash. Here, the results again showed that the pre-flash motion made a significant contribution, about 32% that of the post-flash motion. Several models are considered and even though all fail to some degree, they do offer insights into the nature of the illusion. Finally, we show that the empirical measure of the relative contribution of motion before and after the flash can be used to distinguish the mechanisms underlying different illusions.

[1]  S. Anstis,et al.  Exploring the frame effect , 2022, bioRxiv.

[2]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Dynamic presentation boosts the Ebbinghaus illusion but reduces the Müller-Lyer and orientation contrast illusions , 2021, Journal of Vision.

[3]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Paradoxical stabilization of relative position in moving frames , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Sheng He,et al.  Adaptation to feedback representation of illusory orientation produced from flash grab effect , 2020, Nature Communications.

[5]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Expecting the unexpected: Temporal expectation increases the flash-grab effect. , 2019, Journal of vision.

[6]  Hinze Hogendoorn,et al.  When predictions fail: Correction for extrapolation in the flash-grab effect. , 2019, Journal of vision.

[7]  Elle van Heusden,et al.  Predictive coding of visual motion in both monocular and binocular human visual processing. , 2019, Journal of vision.

[8]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Motion Extrapolation for Eye Movements Predicts Perceived Motion-Induced Position Shifts , 2018, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[10]  P. Tse,et al.  Motion-Induced Position Shifts Activate Early Visual Cortex , 2017, Front. Neurosci..

[11]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Strikingly rapid neural basis of motion-induced position shifts revealed by high temporal-resolution EEG pattern classification , 2015, Vision Research.

[12]  P. Tse,et al.  Motion-induced position shifts are influenced by global motion, but dominated by component motion , 2015, Vision Research.

[13]  Lars Strother,et al.  The Dynamic Ebbinghaus: motion dynamics greatly enhance the classic contextual size illusion , 2015, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

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

[15]  Zhuanghua Shi,et al.  Motion Extrapolation in the Central Fovea , 2012, PloS one.

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

[17]  A. Fadda,et al.  Vesicular carriers for dermal drug delivery , 2009, Expert opinion on drug delivery.

[18]  Romi Nijhawan,et al.  Going, going, gone: localizing abrupt offsets of moving objects. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Romi Nijhawan,et al.  Visual prediction: Psychophysics and neurophysiology of compensation for time delays , 2008, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  Harold E Bedell,et al.  Differential latencies and the dynamics of the position computation process for moving targets, assessed with the flash-lag effect , 2004, Vision Research.

[21]  R. Nijhawan,et al.  Neural delays, visual motion and the flash-lag effect , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[29]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Fröhlich effect and delays of visual attention. , 2017, Journal of vision.

[30]  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.

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

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