Abstract
We examined how stream/bounce event perception is affected by motion correspondence based on the surface features of moving objects passing behind an occlusion. In the stream/bounce display two identical objects moving across each other in a two-dimensional display can be perceived as either streaming through or bouncing off each other at coincidence. Here, surface features such as colour (Experiments 1 and 2) or luminance (Experiment 3) were switched between the two objects at coincidence. The moment of coincidence was invisible to observers due to an occluder. Additionally, the presentation of the moving objects was manipulated in duration after the feature switch at coincidence. The results revealed that a postcoincidence duration of approximately 200 ms was required for the visual system to stabilize judgments of stream/bounce events by determining motion correspondence between the objects across the occlusion on the basis of the surface feature. The critical duration was similar across motion speeds of objects and types of surface features. Moreover, controls (Experiments 4a–4c) showed that cognitive bias based on feature (colour/luminance) congruency across the occlusion could not fully account for the effects of surface features on the stream/bounce judgments. We discuss the roles of motion correspondence, visual feature processing, and attentive tracking in the stream/bounce judgments.
Highlights
Visual objects have unique features such as location, motion, colour, luminance, contrast, size, and shape
Beyond the previous finding of Feldman and Tremoulet (2006) that showed that a feature switch at coincidence strongly affects the judgment of stream/bounce events, we specified the critical PCD needed to produce stable judgments of the stream/bounce motion display through motion correspondence based on surface feature
The analysis of the proportion of bouncing percept showed that in Experiment 2 the bounce reports were more frequent with the switch condition than with the no-switch or control conditions when the PCD was longer than 160.00 ms. These results suggest that the critical factor in the establishment of motion correspondence based on surface feature was the PCD and not the postcoincidence trajectory length
Summary
Visual objects have unique features such as location, motion, colour, luminance, contrast, size, and shape Because these visual features are separately processed in distinct brain areas (Livingstone and Hubel 1988), the visual system has to establish event representation by integrating the various types of visual features around us. A switch of visual features between the two objects at an occluded coincidence point can bias observers’ percepts toward bouncing (Figure 1; Feldman and Tremoulet 2006). This simple demonstration suggests that the visual system solves a correspondence problem in matching the objects before coincidence with those after coincidence on the basis of the surface feature. We suppose that the critical function to determine the appearance of Temporal limit of stream/bounce event perception the stream/bounce display in the case of a feature switch is “motion correspondence based on surface feature”, in our terminology
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
