Latency differences and the flash-lag effect

The tendency for briefly flashed stimuli to appear to lag behind the spatial position of physically aligned moving stimuli is known as the flash-lag effect. Possibly the simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that transient stimuli are processed more slowly than moving stimuli. We tested this proposal using a task based upon the simultaneous tilt illusion. When an oriented stimulus is surrounded by another oriented stimulus, the inner stimulus can appear to be rotated away from the orientation of the surround. By flashing central static sinewave gratings at specific phases of an annular gratings rotation cycle, we were able to determine the temporal dependence of the tilt illusion. Our results suggest a small, approximately 20 ms, processing advantage for the rotating stimulus relative to the flashed stimulus. Such a small advantage, if due to differential latencies, is insufficient to account for the flash-lag effect.

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

[2]  Gerhard A. Brecher,et al.  Effects of rotating backgrounds upon the perception of verticality , 1972 .

[3]  Paul V McGraw,et al.  Vernier and contrast discrimination in central and peripheral vision , 2000, Vision Research.

[4]  Vision Research , 1961, Nature.

[5]  Peter Wenderoth,et al.  The effects of exposure duration and surrounding frames on direct and indirect tilt aftereffects and illusions , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  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.

[7]  I. Murakami,et al.  A flash-lag effect in random motion , 2001, Vision Research.

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

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

[10]  D. Burr,et al.  The “Flash-Lag” Effect Occurs in Audition and Cross-Modally , 2003, Current Biology.

[11]  C. Clifford,et al.  A functional angle on some after-effects in cortical vision , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  S. Mateeff,et al.  Perceptual latencies are shorter for motion towards the fovea than for motion away , 1988, Vision Research.

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

[14]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Optimal Smoothing in Visual Motion Perception , 2001, Neural Computation.

[15]  M. Coltheart.  Visual feature-analyzers and after-effects of tilt and curvature. , 1971, Psychological review.

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

[17]  M. Lappe,et al.  Response: Untangling spatial from temporal illusions , 2002 .

[18]  H. Bedell,et al.  Flash-lag effect: differential latency, not postdiction. , 2000, Science.

[19]  Simon Carlile,et al.  The nature and distribution of errors in sound localization by human listeners , 1997, Hearing Research.

[20]  M. Lappe,et al.  Response to Eagleman and Sejnowski letter , 2002, Trends in Neurosciences.

[21]  Terrence J Sejnowski,et al.  Untangling spatial from temporal illusions , 2002, Trends in Neurosciences.

[22]  Gerald Westhhmer,et al.  Simultaneous orientation contrast for lines in the human fovea , 1990, Vision Research.

[23]  A. Leventhal,et al.  Signal timing across the macaque visual system. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  G. Orban,et al.  Velocity selectivity in the cat visual system. I. Responses of LGN cells to moving bar stimuli: a comparison with cortical areas 17 and 18. , 1985, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  J. Gibson,et al.  Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of tilted lines. I. Quantitative studies , 1937 .

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

[27]  G. Orban,et al.  Response latencies of visual cells in macaque areas V1, V2 and V5 , 1989, Brain Research.

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

[29]  G Westheimer,et al.  Simultaneous orientation contrast for lines in the human fovea. , 1990, Vision research.