Illusory Line Research Articles

Backward illusory line motion: Visual motion perception can be influenced by retrospective stimulation.

When a visual cue appears beside a horizontal line segment before the line appears, the illusory motion is perceived as a line extending from the side closest to the side farthest from the cue. This is known as illusory line motion (ILM). In Experiment 1, we presented the cue after the line onset and found that the line seemed to extend toward the side of the cue (backward ILM). In Experiment 2, we confirmed the robustness and replicability of the backward ILM. In Experiments 3 to 5, we investigated the role of endogenous and exogenous attention in the generation of backward ILM and found effects of attention, but not large enough to explain the backward ILM in Experiments 1 and 2. The current findings suggest that the direction of ILM depended on the temporal relation of whether the cue precedes or follows the stimulus appearance, and that attentional shift played a role in the perception of backward ILM.

Backward Illusory Line Motion: Visual Motion Perception Produced by Retrospective Attention

Backward Illusory Line Motion: Visual Motion Perception Produced by Retrospective Attention

Asymmetrical Pseudo-Extinction Phenomenon in the Illusory Line Motion

Illusory Line Motion (i.e., a static line, presented after a lateral cue, is perceived as movement in the opposite direction to the cue) has been used to study a phenomenon of perceptual asymmetry. We have demonstrated the presence of an illusion of leftward movement, even in the presence of bilateral symmetrical cues. We have classified this phenomenon as one of pseudo-extinction. The paradigm of the four experiments performed was always the same: a white line, briefly presented alone or preceded by one or two lateral cues (150 ms), was judged by a group of young participants to be moving either to one side or the other. The asymmetrical effect in the bilateral cue condition was observed with horizontal lines (Experiment 1 and 4), and not with vertical or oblique (Experiment 2 and 3). These results suggest that the effect is linked to the asymmetry of the horizontal spatial planum and the mechanisms of spatial attention. Experiment 4 verified whether the Illusory Line Motion involves the collicular pathway by using blue stimuli for the cues, which activate less the Superior Colliculus (SC), with negative results. We interpreted the asymmetrical pseudo-extinction phenomenon in terms of a right-space exogenous attention advantage.

Cancelling Flash Illusory Line Motion by Cancelling the Attentional Gradient and a Consideration of Consciousness.

Illusory line motion (ILM) refers to the perception of motion in a line that is, in fact, presented in full at one time. One form of this illusion (flashILM) occurs when the line is presented between two objects following a brief luminance change in one of them and flashILM is thought to result from exogenous attention being captured by the flash. Exogenous attention fades with increasing delays, which predicts that flashILM should show a similar temporal pattern. Exogenous attention appears to follow flashILM to become more or less equally distributed along the line.The current study examines flashILM in order to test these predictions derived from the attentional explanation for flashILM and the results were consistent with them. The discussion then concludes with an exploratory analysis approach concerning states of consciousness and decision making and suggests a possible role for attention.

Comparisons of flashILM, transformational apparent motion, and polarized gamma motion indicate these are three independent and separable illusions

Illusory line motion (ILM) refers to perceived motion in a bar when it is presented all at once. Explanations for ILM include low-level visual accounts, visual attention, and object tracking. These explanations tend to arise from studies using different protocols to induce ILM, based on the assumption that the same illusion is being generated. Using real motion in the same and in the opposite direction as the ILM quantifies the illusions from all protocols as the area between response curves for the left- and right-side inducers. This common measure enables testing of the assumption that two display configurations result in the same illusion. If there is a common underlying cause, an individual who shows a strong illusion in one situation should show a strong illusion in the other, but illusions that arise through different systems should not correlate. This approach has differentiated ILM induced by a flash (flashILM) from ILM induced by matching the bar to an attribute of the inducing stimuli (transformational apparent motion, TAM). The former is thought to reflect attention, while the latter is thought to reflect object processing. Low-level visual explanations are often offered based on ILM that occurs when the bar is adjacent to only a single inducer (polarized gamma motion, PGM) rather than between two stimuli (flashILM and TAM). The present study replicates the independence of flashILM and TAM and shows that neither is related to PGM, suggesting that all three explanations for ILM are warranted and that the debates in the literature are conflating at least three different illusions.

The relationship between flash based illusory line motion and exogenous visual attention.

If a bar suddenly appears between 2 squares after 1 of the squares flashes the bar appears to shoot away from the flashed square toward the other. This occurs despite the bar actually having been presented all at once. This illusory motion is sufficiently strong to cancel real motion drawn in the opposite direction. One explanation for the illusion in these displays is based upon the prior entry benefits generated by exogenous attention at the flashed location. These prior entry benefits can be offset by real motion in the opposite direction, which enables 1 to quantify the illusion based upon the area between the response curves following left and right flashes. The influence of attention can be quantified as the costs plus benefits during an exogenous cuing study involving target discrimination. The current study required participants to complete motion direction discrimination trials and a set of target discrimination trials following noninformative peripheral cues. If attention is involved in the motion illusion during these displays then those who show large effects of attention during cuing should also show large illusions. Correlation analyses confirmed a positive relationship existed between the costs plus benefits of exogenous attention and the illusory motion. (PsycINFO Database Record

Does Allocation of Attention Influence Relative Velocity and Strength of Illusory Line Motion?

In illusory line motion, presentation of a cue is followed by presentation of a nearby stationary line, and the line is perceived to “unfold,” “expand,” or “extend” away from the cue. Effects of the allocation of attention regarding where the cue or the line would be presented were measured in three experiments, and ratings of relative velocity and relative strength of illusory motion were collected. Findings included (a) relative velocity and relative strength decreased with increases in SOA from 50 to 450 ms, (b) relative velocity and relative strength were not influenced by whether illusory motion moved from one end of the line to the other or from both ends toward the middle of the line, (c) increased uncertainty regarding where the line would appear did not influence relative velocity or relative strength, and (d) valid pre-cues regarding the location of a cue resulted in faster relative velocity than did invalid pre-cues, but pre-cue validity did not influence relative strength. Implications of these findings for the relationship of such illusory motion and attention (e.g., divided attention, shifts in attended location) are considered.

Flash-induced forward and reverse illusory line motion in offset bars.

Illusory line motion (ILM) refers to perception of motion in a bar that onsets or offsets all at once. When the bar onsets or offsets between two boxes after one of the boxes flashes, the bar appears to shoot out of the flashed box (flashILM). If the bar offsets during the flash, it appears to contract into the flashed box (reverse ILM; rILM). Onset bars do not show rILM. Moreover, rILM and flashILM are not correlated, indicating they are two different illusions. To date, rILM has only been studied using a 50-ms flash where the bar offsets 16.7 ms after flash onset. It is not clear if rILM is due to the 16.7-ms flash-bar-removal stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) or due to the flash offsetting after the bar. The current studies explore these parameters to better understand the conditions that lead to rILM. The results suggest that flashILM is sensitive to the temporal interval between flash onset and bar offset, while rILM appears to arise when the flash offsets after the bar has been removed regardless of the temporal interval between flash onset and bar removal. These results are consistent with flashILM reflecting visual exogenous attention while rILM may reflect the low-level spreading of subthreshold activation radiating from the flashed box. The findings are incorporated into the recent work that suggests that the literature concerning ILM is possibly conflating a number of different illusions of line motion, including polarized gamma motion (PGM), transformational apparent motion (TAM), and exogenous attention induced motion (flashILM).

Curvature Blindness Illusion.

We report a novel illusion––curvature blindness illusion: a wavy line is perceived as a zigzag line. The following are required for this illusion to occur. First, the luminance contrast polarity of the wavy line against the background is reversed at the turning points. Second, the curvature of the wavy line is somewhat low; the right angle is too steep to be perceived as an illusion. This illusion implies that, in order to perceive a gentle curve, it is necessary to satisfy more conditions––constant contrast polarity––than perceiving an obtuse corner. It is notable that observers exactly “see” an illusory zigzag line against a physically wavy line, rather than have an impaired perception. We propose that the underlying mechanisms for the gentle curve perception and those of obtuse corner perception are competing with each other in an imbalanced way and the percepts of corner might be dominant in the visual system.

Illusory line motion in onset and offset bars.

Illusory line motion (ILM) refers to the perception of motion in a bar that is presented all at once next to an inducing stimulus. The experimental methods for producing and quantifying ILM are varied, and the resulting explanations are likewise at odds. The current study examined the explanations for ILM away from the inducing stimulus (bright or dark flash) using bars that either suddenly appear (onset bars) or suddenly disappear (offset bars). Real motion is used to cancel ILM, providing three measures to quantify ILM: the consistency of responding to only ILM in the absence of real motion; the distance between the points of subjective equality between ILM and the real motion; and the area between the curves relating perception of motion to the real and illusory conditions. ILM quantities for onset and offset bars are strongly correlated when the bar change occurs after the flash. However, onset bars presented during the flash do not show any evidence of ILM, whereas offset bars removed during the flash result in reverse ILM (rILM). Moreover, rILM and ILM are not correlated, suggesting they reflect two separate illusions. These results are consistent over the various measures of ILM.

Illusory line motion is not caused by object-differentiating mechanisms or endogenous attention.

Christie and Klein [2005. Does attention cause illusory line motion? Perception & Psychophysics, 67(6), 1032-1043] published line motion ratings consistent with illusory line motion (ILM) after peripheral endogenous cues but not central arrow cues. When attention was directed endogenously on the basis of the shape of one of two peripherally presented objects, participants reported small, but significant motion away from the attended object, and this was attributed to participant bias, or to a peripherally directed object-based attention system endogenously recruited to differentiate the peripheral shapes. By using a unique cueing method with identical peripheral markers, but still allowing them to act as cues, the findings of Christie and Klein Experiment 4 were replicated. This reduces the likelihood that object discrimination or object attention mechanisms are responsible for the reported ILM-like effects.

Ponzo inducers in the working memory produce Illusory line length perception

Ponzo inducers in the working memory produce Illusory line length perception

Neural Correlates of Illusory Line Motion

Illusory line motion (ILM) refers to a motion illusion in which a flash at one end of a bar prior to the bar's instantaneous presentation or removal results in the percept of motion. While some theories attribute the origin of ILM to attention or early perceptual mechanisms, others have proposed that ILM results from impletion mechanisms that reinterpret the static bar as one in motion. The current functional magnetic resonance imaging study examined participants while they made decisions about the direction of motion in which a bar appeared to be removed. Preceding the instantaneous removal of the bar with a flash at one end resulted in a motion percept away from the flash. If this flash and the bar's removal overlapped in time, it appeared that the bar was removed towards the flash (reverse ILM). Independent of the motion type, brain responses indicated activations in areas associated with motion (MT+), endogenous and exogenous attention (intraparietal sulcus, frontal eye fields, and ventral frontal cortex), and response selection (ACC). ILM was associated with lower percept scores and higher activations in ACC relative to real motion, but no differences in shape-selective areas emerged. This pattern of brain activation is consistent with the attentional gradient model or bottom-up accounts of ILM in preference to impletion.

Illusory line motion and transformational apparent motion during continuous flash suppression1

AbstractA static bar is perceived to dynamically extend from a peripheral cue (illusory line motion (ILM)) or from a part of another figure presented in the previous frame (transformational apparent motion (TAM)). We examined whether visibility for the cue stimuli affected these transformational motions. Continuous flash suppression, one kind of dynamic interocular masking, was used to reduce the visibility for the cue stimuli. Both ILM and TAM significantly occurred when the d' for cue stimuli was zero (Experiment 1) and when the cue stimuli were presented at subthreshold levels (Experiment 2). We discuss that higher‐order motion processing underlying TAM and ILM can be weakly but significantly activated by invisible visual information.

Displacement of location in illusory line motion

Six experiments examined displacement in memory for the location of the line in illusory line motion (ILM; appearance or disappearance of a stationary cue is followed by appearance of a stationary line that is presented all at once, but the stationary line is perceived to "unfold" or "be drawn" from the end closest to the cue to the end most distant from the cue). If ILM was induced by having a single cue appear, then memory for the location of the line was displaced toward the cue, and displacement was larger if the line was closer to the cue. If ILM was induced by having one of two previously visible cues vanish, then memory for the location of the line was displaced away from the cue that vanished. In general, the magnitude of displacement increased and then decreased as retention interval increased from 50 to 250ms and from 250 to 450ms, respectively. Displacement of the line (a) is consistent with a combination of a spatial averaging of the locations of the cue and the line with a relatively weaker dynamic in the direction of illusory motion, (b) might be implemented in a spreading activation network similar to networks previously suggested to implement displacement resulting from implied or apparent motion, and (c) provides constraints and challenges for theories of ILM.

Effects of temporal and spatial separation on velocity and strength of illusory line motion

The effects of line length and of spatial or temporal distance on illusory line motion (i.e., on the perception that a stationary line unfolds or expands away from a previously presented stationary cue) were examined in five experiments. Ratings of relative velocity decreased with increases in stimulus onset asynchrony between appearance of the cue and appearance of the line (from 50 to 450ms), whereas the extremity of ratings of direction (i.e., strength of the ratings of illusory line motion) increased with increases in stimulus onset asynchrony (from 50 to either 250 or 450ms). Ratings of relative velocity increased with increases in line length, whereas ratings of direction were not influenced by increases in line length. Ratings of relative velocity and direction were not influenced by increases in the distance of the near or the far end of the line from the cue. Implications of these data for attentional theories and apparent-motion theories of illusory line motion are discussed.

Independent modulation of illusory line motion by onset and offset transients

Independent modulation of illusory line motion by onset and offset transients

An arrow allows illusory line motion to get together

An arrow allows illusory line motion to get together

Exploring the modulation of attentional capture by attentional control settings using performance and illusory line motion

Modulation of attentional capture by attentional control settings was explored using performance and phenomenology. Trials began with four figure-8s presented above, below, left, and right of fixation. Any figure-8 (or none) brightened uninformatively (cue) before presentation of either a digit target (2 or 5 made from a figure-8 by deletion) calling for a speeded identification, or a line connecting adjacent figure-8s calling for a motion judgement. Such lines are seen drawn away from an adjacent cue. Digit targets appeared only on the horizontal or vertical axes, encouraging voluntary attention to two (target-relevant) of the four figure-8s. Whereas voluntary attention reduced attentional capture from cues at taskirrelevant locations (when lines were unlikely to be presented near the task-irrelevant locations), it had no effect on motion judgements, suggesting that cue-elicited exogenous attention affects perceptual arrival times while voluntary attention prioritizes locations for further processing without affecting arrival times.

Perceptual consequences of visual performance fields: The case of the line motion illusion

Illusory line motion (ILM) is the illusion that a line, preceded by a small dot (cue) near one end, is perceived to shoot out from the dot even though the line is physically presented at once. Does this illusion result from a low-level motion effect, a gradient of exogenous spatial attention, or both? Given that exogenous attention speeds visual processing unequally at isoeccentric cardinal locations (M. Carrasco, A. M. Giordano, & B. McElree, 2004), we hypothesized that the contribution of attention to ILM would follow the same pattern. We characterized psychometric functions of perceived line motion direction, for 1.5 degrees stimuli with varying amounts of physical line motion (8 levels) at four cardinal locations. We used three cue conditions to separate the effects of attention from low-level motion-a single cue to draw focal attention to the stimulus location, a distributed cue with elements near all four possible stimulus locations, and no visual cue. Distributed and single cues generate identical effects along the horizontal meridian, but the effect of the single cue is progressively greater along the vertical meridian, more so at the top location ("North"). We conclude that the low-level motion explanation accounts for the majority of the canonical example of the ILM (line preceded by a single dot) effect used in our study.