Motion-induced position shifts are influenced by global motion, but dominated by component motion

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.

A dynamic noise background reveals perceptual motion extrapolation: The twinkle-goes illusion

We find that on a dynamic noise background, the perceived disappearance location of a moving object is shifted in the direction of motion. This “twinkle-goes” illusion does not require luminance- or chromaticity-based confusability of the object with the background, or on the amount of background motion energy in the same direction as the object motion. This suggests that the illusion is enabled by the dynamic noise masking the offset transients that otherwise accompany an object's disappearance. While these results are consistent with an anticipatory process that pre-activates positions ahead of the object's current position, additional findings suggest an alternative account: a continuation of attentional tracking after the object disappears. First, the shift increased with speed until over 1.2 revolutions per second (rps), nearing the attentional tracking limit. Second, the shift was greatly reduced when attention was divided between two moving objects. Finally, the illusion was associated with a delay in simple reaction time to the disappearance of the object. We propose that in the absence of offset transients, attentional tracking keeps moving for several tens of milliseconds after the target disappearance, and this causes one to hallucinate a moving object at the position of attention.

Motion-Induced Scotoma

We investigated artificial scotomas created when a moving object instantaneously crossed a gap, jumping ahead and continuing its otherwise smooth motion. Gaps of up to 5.1 degrees of visual angle, presented at 18° eccentricity, either closed completely or appeared much shorter than when the same gap was crossed by two-point apparent motion, or crossed more slowly, mimicking occlusion. Prolonged exposure to motion trajectories with a gap in most cases led to further shrinking of the gap. The same gap-shrinking effect has previously been observed in touch. In both sensory modalities, it implicates facilitation among codirectional local motion detectors and motion neurons with receptive fields larger than the gap. Unlike stimuli that simply deprive a receptor surface of input, suggesting it is insentient, our motion pattern skips a section in a manner that suggests a portion of the receptor surface has been excised, and the remaining portions stitched back together. This makes it a potentially useful tool in the experimental study of plasticity in sensory maps.

Motion-Induced Position Shifts Activate Early Visual Cortex

The ability to correctly determine the position of objects in space is a fundamental task of the visual system. The perceived position of briefly presented static objects can be influenced by nearby moving contours, as demonstrated by various illusions collectively known as motion-induced position shifts. Here we use a stimulus that produces a particularly strong effect of motion on perceived position. We test whether several regions-of-interest (ROIs), at different stages of visual processing, encode the perceived rather than retinotopically veridical position. Specifically, we collect functional MRI data while participants experience motion-induced position shifts and use a multivariate pattern analysis approach to compare the activation patterns evoked by illusory position shifts with those evoked by matched physical shifts. We find that the illusory perceived position is represented at the earliest stages of the visual processing stream, including primary visual cortex. Surprisingly, we found no evidence of percept-based encoding of position in visual areas beyond area V3. This result suggests that while it is likely that higher-level visual areas are involved in position encoding, early visual cortex also plays an important role.

Robust size illusion produced by expanding and contracting flow fields

A new illusion is described. Randomly positioned dots moved radially within an imaginary annular window. The dots' motion periodically changed the direction, leading to an alternating percept of expanding and contracting motion. Strikingly, the apparent size of the enclosed circular region shrank during the dots' expanding phases and dilated during the contracting phases. We quantitatively measured the illusion, and found that the presence of energy at the local kinetic edge could not account for the illusion. Besides, we reproduced the illusion on a natural scene background seen from a first-person point of view that moved forward and backward periodically. Blurring the boundaries of motion areas could not reverse the illusion in all subjects. Taken together, our observed illusion is likely induced by optic flow processing with some components of motion contrast. Expanding or contracting dots may induce the self-motion perception of either approaching or leaving way from the circle. These will make the circle appear smaller or larger since its retinal size remains constant.