Induced movement based on subtraction of motion from the inducing object

Target motion misjudgments reflect a misperception of the background; revealed using continuous psychophysics

Determining the velocities of target objects as we navigate complex environments is made more difficult by the fact that our own motion adds systematic motion signals to the visual scene. The flow-parsing hypothesis asserts that the background motion is subtracted from visual scenes in such cases as a way for the visual system to determine target motions relative to the scene. Here, we address the question of why backgrounds are only partially subtracted in lab settings. At the same time, we probe a much-neglected aspect of scene perception in flow-parsing studies, that is, the perception of the background itself. Here, we present results from three experienced psychophysical participants and one inexperienced participant who took part in three continuous psychophysics experiments. We show that, when the background optic flow pattern is composed of local elements whose motions are congruent with the global optic flow pattern, the incompleteness of the background subtraction can be entirely accounted for by a misperception of the background. When the local velocities comprising the background are randomly dispersed around the average global velocity, an additional factor is needed to explain the subtraction incompleteness. We show that a model where background perception is a result of the brain attempting to infer scene motion due to self-motion can account for these results.

Motion by Nearby Players Biases Perception but Not Action in Judgments of Baseball Destination

In this research, the influence of irrelevant reference frames on estimates of ball destination was examined. In 3 experiments, confederate base runners and fielders served as distractor stimuli while balls were rolled from home plate to random locations along a barrier hidden under an elevated tarp between first and second base. Stationary participants estimated the position that the ball would exit from under the tarp if there were no barrier, whereas running participants ran along the back edge of the barrier and touched the top of the tarp above where they believed the ball would exit. Estimates of ball destination were significantly biased in the direction opposite to the confederates' motion for stationary participants, but were accurate for running participants. These findings are consistent with other perception-action dissociations, and show that relative motion effects can occur in a naturalistic setting.

What if they knocked down the library and nobody noticed? The failure to detect large changes to familiar scenes

The purpose of the current study was to investigate people's ability to detect changes to familiar scenes. College students were asked either to identify what was wrong with a picture of a familiar location on their college campus (e.g., the library had been removed from the scene), or to estimate the difficulty of change detection for a hypothetical cohort performing the same task. Performance in the change-detection condition was extremely poor, even when changes were large. Participants who were familiar with the scenes and those who were unfamiliar with the scenes both overestimated the actual levels of change-detection performance. A follow-up analysis indicated that the participants who were unfamiliar with the scenes produced estimations of difficulty that were highly correlated with the mathematical area of the change, whereas participants who were familiar with the scenes produced estimations of difficulty that were highly correlated with the actual difficulty of change detection. The results indicate that people's visual long-term memory for familiar scenes lacks the precision to be able to effectively identify even large-scale changes, although subjectively people believe this should be relatively easy.

Studies of open-loop pointing in the presence of induced motion

In the present research, we examined the influence of induced motion (IM) on open-loop pointing responses and the possibility that IM alters the registration of either eye or trunk position. In two experiments, subjects tracked a dot that oscillated vertically while a rectangular stimulus oscillated horizontally. The pairing of frame and dot motion caused the dot to appear to move on a slant, due to IM. In the first experiment, the subjects made judgments of the apparent slant of the dot's motion and, on separate trials, pointed open loop at the apparent location of the dot at the endpoints of its motion. Both responses were influenced by IM, although the effect on dot localization was less than the amount predicted by the IM, as indicated by the slant responses. Results were similar immediately following IM and after a 5-sec delay. In the second experiment, the subjects pointed open loop either at the apparent location of the endpoints of the tracked dot's motion or at the apparent location of one of three other briefly flashed stationary dots. The pointing responses directed toward the fixated IM target were influenced by IM to a greater extent than the responses directed toward the stationary dots. The results of the two experiments are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the effect of IM on open-loop pointing at the IM target results completely from altered perception of either eye or trunk position, since misregistration of either would be expected to influence, in a similar fashion, pointing at both the tracked dot and the briefly flashed, stationary targets.

Induced rotational motion with nonabutting inducing and induced stimuli: implications regarding two forms of induced motion

Induced motion is the illusory motion of a static stimulus in the opposite direction to a moving stimulus. Two types of induced motion have been distinguished: (a) when the moving stimulus is distant from the static stimulus and undergoes overall displacement, and (b) when the moving stimulus is pattern viewed within fixed boundaries that abut the static stimulus. Explanations of the 1st type of induced motion refer to mediating phenomena, such as vection, whereas the 2nd type is attributed to local processing by motion-sensitive neurons. The present research was directed to a display that elicited induced rotational motion with the characteristics of both types of induced motion: the moving stimulus lay within fixed boundaries, but the inducing and induced stimuli were distant from each other. The author investigated the properties that distinguished the two types of induced motion. In 3 experiments, induced motion persisted indefinitely, interocular transfer of the aftereffect of induced motion was limited to about 20%, and the time-course of the aftereffect of induced motion could not be attributed to vection. Those results were consistent with fixed-boundary induced motion. However, they could not be explained by local processing. Instead, the results might reflect the detection of object motion within a complex flow-field that resulted from the observer's motion.

The far-anchor effect: errors in the perception of motion and implications for aviation safety

The far-anchor effect is responsible for a motion-in-depth illusion that has only recently been recognized. When viewing conditions are limited, motions in depth of a farther target in a two-object display may readily be perceived as opposite motions in depth of the nearer target. The present studies determined whether this error could be avoided through controlled fixation or training with feedback. Under conditions of reduced visibility, participants (college students) viewed 64 two-target presentations varying in the position of the moving target and its direction of motion. Neither fixation instructions nor informational feedback about motion errors affected the occurrence of the basic illusion, nor did a vertical separation of the targets eliminate the main effect, indicating the robustness of the motion illusion under some relatively realistic variations. Such errors in judging motion in depth have significance for both midair collisions between aircraft and ground-incursion accidents under conditions of reduced visibility. Potential applications include the elaboration of examples used in pilot training programs or in training programs for ground personnel.

Organizational factors and the perception of motion in depth

When two stationary, stereoscopically separated targets are viewed in a completely dark surround, and no cues concerning their egocentric distances from the observer are salient, the farther target tends to be seen at the same distance it would have assumed if it were by itself. The nearer target is seen as being closer than it would have been if seen alone. The present studies extend this previous finding (now termed the far-anchor effect) into the domain of targets that move in stereoscopic space. Observers viewed two small illuminated targets, which began at either the same or different stereoscopic distances. One of the targets was moved in depth and the observers identified the target that appeared to move. Conditions varied according to the initial depth location of the moving target. Significantly more correct responses were reported when the nearer target moved than when the farther one moved, consistent with the hypothesis that the perception of motion in depth is affected by the aforementioned perceptual anchoring effect of the farther target.

Motion over the retina and the motion aftereffect

The motion aftereffect (MAE) was measured with retinally moving vertical gratings positioned above and below (flanking) a retinally stationary central grating (experiments 1 and 2). Motion over the retina was produced by leftward motion of the flanking gratings relative to the stationary eyes, and by rightward eye or head movements tracking the moving (but retinally stationary) central grating relative to the stationary (but retinally moving) surround gratings. In experiment 1 the motion occurred within a fixed boundary on the screen, and oppositely directed MAEs were produced in the central and flanking gratings with static fixation; but with eye or head tracking MAEs were reported only in the central grating. In experiment 2 motion over the retina was equated for the static and tracking conditions by moving blocks of grating without any dynamic occlusion and disclosure at the boundaries. Both conditions yielded equivalent leftward MAEs of the central grating in the same direction as the prior flanking motion, ie an MAE was consistently produced in the region that had remained retinally stationary. No MAE was recorded in the flanking gratings, even though they moved over the retina during adaptation. When just two gratings were presented, MAEs were produced in both, but in opposite directions (experiments 3 and 4). It is concluded that the MAE is a consequence of adapting signals for the relative motion between elements of a display.

Induced motion of a fixated target: influence of voluntary eye deviation

Induced motion (IM) was observed in a fixated target in the direction opposite to the real motion of a moving background. Relative to a fixation target located straight ahead, IM decreased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees in the same direction as background motion and increased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees opposite background motion. These results are consistent with a "nystagmus-suppression" hypothesis for subjective motion of fixated targets: the magnitude of illusory motion is correlated with the amount of voluntary efference required to oppose involuntary eye movements that would occur in the absence of fixation. In addition to the form of IM studied, this explanation applies to autokinesis, apparent concomitant motion, and the oculogyral illusion. Accounts of IM that stress visual capture of vection, afferent mechanisms, egocenter deviations, or phenomenological principles, although they may explain some forms of IM, do not account for the present results.

Induced motion: isolation and dissociation of egocentric and vection-entrained components

Induced motion (IM) is illusory motion of a stationary test target opposite to the direction of the real motion of the inducing stimulus. We define egocentric IM as an apparent motion of the test target relative to the observer, and vection-entrained IM as an apparent motion of a stationary object along with an apparent motion of the self (vection) induced by the same stimulus. These two forms of IM are often confounded, and tests for distinguishing between them have not been devised. We have devised such tests. Our test for egocentric IM relies on evidence that this form of IM is due mainly to a misregistration of eye movements when optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) is inhibited, and on evidence that OKN is evoked only by stimuli in the plane of convergence. Our test for vection-entrained IM relies on evidence that vection is evoked only by the more distant of two superimposed inducing stimuli. Thus we found egocentric IM to be induced without vection or vection-entrained IM when subjects converged on a foreground moving display with a stationary display in the background, and vection-entrained IM to be induced without egocentric IM when subjects converged on a stationary-foreground display with a moving display in the background. The two types of IM were evoked in opposite directions at the same time when subjects converged on a foreground moving display while a background display moved in the opposite direction. The two forms of IM showed no signs of interaction, and we conclude that they rely on independent motion mechanisms that operate within distinct frames of reference. A control experiment suggested that the depth adjacency effect in IM is determined by the depth adjacency of the inducing stimulus to convergence, not just to the test target.

Induced rotary movement during eye movements: displays with unequal spacing of pattern

In my previous (Reinhardt-Rutland, 1982) study, I suggested that eye movements enhance induced rotary movement. However, low salience of absolute displacement might also explain the results, as displays were covered with large numbers of equally spaced radial pattern elements. To test these competing hypotheses in the present study, I used an unequally spaced pattern in two displays. Common to each display was an annulus: In one display, the common annulus surrounded a disk, and in the other display the common annulus was surrounded by another annulus. In any trial, one component rotated and the other was stationary while for 40 s the subject's eyes followed a circular path concentric with the display; subjects timed those occasions when perceived stronger rotation resided in the common annulus. Despite an unequally spaced pattern, absolute displacement had a barely significant effect. Instead, perceived stronger rotation mostly resided in a display's more central component. I concluded therefore that eye movements enhance induced rotary movement.

Induced rotary motion and ocular torsion

When a large patterned annulus rotates around a stationary sectored disc the latter appears to rotate in the opposite direction. Such induced rotary motion was examined with central discs subtending 5, 20 and 40 deg at the eye, with the surround filling the remainder of the visual field. The annular surround or the central disc could be oscillated sinusoidally around the fixation point through 20 deg at 0.2 Hz. In each case, subjects estimated the angles through which the moving and stationary parts of the display appeared to rotate on one half-cycle. Subjects also estimated the angle of rotation of an oscillating display that filled the visual field. Induced rotation of the centre was around 100% of the inducing amplitude for all disc sizes, but there was no induced motion of the surround when the centre rotated. Ocular torsion was measured under the same conditions, using the scleral search-coil technique. The amplitude of ocular torsion was a function of the size of the stationary or rotating field. Thus, variations in stimulus conditions affected induced rotary motion and ocular torsion in different ways. The implications of the results for theories of induced motion in terms of underregistered eye movements are discussed.

Relationship of induced motion and apparent straight-ahead shifts to optokinetic stimulus velocity

Induced motion (IM) of a fixated spot stimulus and shifts of the apparent straight-ahead (ASA) from the objective median plane were studied as a function of the velocity of a full-field optokinetic background stimulus. Both IM and ASA were influenced similarly by changes in stimulus velocity. The magnitude of both responses, averaged across subjects, increased to a peak level with background velocities of 40-80 deg/sec and decreased at higher velocities. Individual subjects differed with respect to the precise functions by which IM and ASA shifts were related to stimulus velocity. However, for individual subjects, the effects of velocity on IM and ASA shifts were typically highly correlated. Although IM is correlated with shifts of ASA in the opposite direction, the magnitude of the ASA shift is insufficient to account for the observed IM.

Induced motion and optokinetic afternystagmus: parallel response dynamics with prolonged stimulation

Fixation of a stationary target during motion of background contours attenuates optokinetic nystagmus (OKN), while illusory induced motion (IM) of the fixated target occurs opposite the direction of contour motion. It is proposed that IM owes to a perceptually registered efferent signal for ocular pursuit which opposes an unregistered signal for OKN to achieve stable fixation. This proposal predicts parallel changes in the magnitudes of IM and optokinetic reflexes during and after optokinetic stimulation. Accordingly, leftward IM magnitude and rightward slow-phase velocity of optokinetic afternystagmus (OKAN) increased at similar rates across 90 and 160 sec of 60 deg/sec motion of background contours, and decayed at similar rates after stimulus termination. Both responses decayed more deeply following stimulation with, rather than without fixation. Neither retinal image motion nor vection can explain the IM obtained.

The representation of nonuniform motion: induced movement

Induced motion occurs when there is a misallocation of nonuniform motion. Theories of induced motion are reviewed with respect to the model for uniform motion recently proposed by Swanston, Wade, and Day. Theories based on single processes operating at one of the retinocentric, orbitocentric, egocentric, or geocentric levels are not able to account for all aspects of the phenomenon. It is therefore suggested that induced motion is a consequence of combining two different types of motion signals: one provides information by registering the motion with respect to the retina, orbit, and egocentre; the other provides information only on the relational motions between the pattern elements. Simple rules are given for defining a frame of reference for the relational motion process, which can result in a reallocation of the motion signals. It is proposed that the two signals in combination are weighted differentially, with the greater influence coming from the relational signals. Procedures for determining the weighting factors are described, and predictions from the model are examined.

Observations on stroboscopic induced motion

Subject-relative explanations of motion induction state that induced motion is the result of a misperceived shift of the median plane of the visual field of the subject. This theory does not require relative motion of the spot and frame, in the classical spot-and-frame condition, only asymmetrical stimulation. Three experiments are reported in which stroboscopic induced motion was investigated. The experimental arrangement was unconventional in that the induced object (spot) was presented only during the interstimulus interval between the exposures of the inducing object (frame). This allowed differentiation of the duration of the induced movement and that of the inducing one. In the first experiment it was demonstrated that perception of induced motion depends upon the duration of the interstimulus interval between the presentations of the inducing frame. In the second experiment it was shown that the perceived velocity of the induced movement can be different from that of the inducing one and depends on the duration of exposure of the induced object. In the third experiment a stimulus display was created in which the apparent displacement of an object and its induced motion are incongruous. The results are incompatible with subject-relative displacement as the sole determining factor of motion induction and they present some difficulties for the hypothesis that induced motion is the result of the apportionment of the objective displacement of the frame.

Spatial induction of illusory motion

Induced motion is not limited to continuous motions presented on a frontoparallel plane. Experiments were conducted to investigate several varieties of induced motion to which theories of induced motion must apply. The observer indicated the perceived path of motion of a vertically moving test point to which induced motion at right angles to the physical motion was added by the motion of two inducing points. In experiment 1 all motions (both apparently and physically) were in a frontoparallel plane. It was found that discrete displacement as well as continuous motion of the test and inducing points produced substantial amounts of induction. In experiment 2 the inducing points were continuously moved in stereoscopic distance rather than remaining in an apparent frontoparallel plane. A large amount of apparent motion in depth was found in the vertically moving test point and was interpreted as an induced motion in depth. In experiment 3 an alternative interpretation of the phenomenon of experiment 2, in terms of an apparent vergence for the two images of the test point, was investigated and found to be unlikely. In experiment 4, with all the points moving continuously in a frontoparallel plane, eye motions as well as induced motions were measured, with the observer fixating either the test point or an inducing point. Substantial amounts of induction were obtained under both conditions of fixation. The consequences of these findings for theories of induced motion are discussed.