Memory displacement of an object with motion lines

Are We Moving Too Fast?: Representation of Speed in Static Images

Despite pictures being static representations, they use various cues to suggest dynamic motion. To investigate the effectiveness of different motion cues in conveying speed in static images, we conducted 3 experiments. In Experiment 1, we compared subjective speed ratings given for motion lines trailing behind movers, suppletion lines replacing parts of the movers and backfixing lines set in the background against the baseline of having no extra cue. Experiment 2 was a replication of the first experiment with an addition of several motion lines considering the effect of quantity on conveyed speed. Experiment 3 then examined the actual time assessments of each cue and bare objects indicated for movers to complete their paths. Our results showed that motion cues vary in their effectiveness in depicting speed, with some influence from proficiency in reading manga. Motion lines, which index the path being traversed, remained less effective than suppletion and backfixing lines, which we argue encode the speed component of motion rather than directionality. However, adding more motion lines intensified the perceived speed of the movers. These static cues also influenced the actual time durations individuals indicated for fictitious motion events, in line with the subjective speed ratings. Altogether, our results suggest that different aspects of motion can be captured by different cues, and that the effectiveness of cues might be modulated by exposure to such patterns, in line with the premises of a visual lexicon view.

The Meaning of Motion Lines?: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Research on Static Depiction of Motion

Static depiction of motion, particularly lines trailing behind a mover, has long been of interest in the psychology literature. Empirical research has demonstrated that these "motion lines" benefited motion comprehension in static images by disambiguating the direction of movement. Yet, there is no consensus on how those lines derive their meaning. In this article, we review three accounts suggesting different interpretations of what motion lines represent. While a perceptual account considers motion lines originating from motion streaks in the primary visual cortex, metaphorical and lexical accounts propose them as graphical conventions that should be learned-either through resemblance to sensory experiences (e.g., natural path marks) or directly being mapped to a conceptual category of paths. To contrast these three accounts, we integrate empirical research on motion lines and their understanding. Overall, developmental, proficiency, and cross-cultural variances indicate that the understanding of motion lines is neither innate nor universal, thus providing less support for lines having a purely perceptual origin. Rather, we argue the empirical findings suggest that motion lines are not iconic depictions of visual percepts but are graphical conventions indexing conceptual path information, which need to be learned and encoded in a visual lexicon.

Pupillary response to real, illusory, and implied motion

The perception of moving objects (real motion) is a critical function for interacting with a dynamic environment. Motion perception can be also induced by particular structural features of static images (illusory motion) or by photographic images of subjects in motion (implied motion, IM). Many cortical areas are involved in motion processing, particularly the medial temporal cortical area (MT), dedicated to the processing of real, illusory, and implied motion. Recently, there has been a growing interest in the influence of high-level visual processes on pupillary responses. However, just a few studies have measured the effect of motion processing on the pupil, and not always with consistent results. Here we systematically investigate the effects of real, illusory, and implied motion on the pupil diameter for the first time, by showing different types of stimuli (movies, illusions, and photos) with the same average luminance to the same observers. We find different pupillary responses depending on the nature of motion. Real motion elicits a larger pupillary dilation than IM, which in turn induces more dilation than control photos representing static subjects (No-IM). The pupil response is sensitive even to the strength of IM, as photos with enhanced IM (blur, motion streaks, speed lines) induce larger dilation than simple freezed IM (subjects captured in the instant they are moving). Also, the subject represented in the stimulus matters: human figures are interpreted as more dynamic and induce larger dilation than objects/animals. Interestingly, illusory motion induces much less dilation than all the other motion categories, despite being seen as moving. Overall, pupil responses depend on the individual perception of dynamicity, confirming that the pupil is modulated by the subjective interpretation of complex stimuli. We argue that the different pupillary responses to real, illusory, and implied motion reflect the top-down modulations of different cortical areas involved in their processing.

The notion of the motion: the neurocognition of motion lines in visual narratives

Motion lines appear ubiquitously in graphic representation to depict the path of a moving object, most popularly in comics. Some researchers have argued that these graphic signs directly tie to the "streaks" appearing in the visual system when a viewer tracks an object (Burr, 2000), despite the fact that previous studies have been limited to offline measurements. Here, we directly examine the cognition of motion lines by comparing images in comic strips that depicted normal motion lines with those that either had no lines or anomalous, reversed lines. In Experiment 1, shorter viewing times appeared to images with normal lines than those with no lines, which were shorter than those with anomalous lines. In Experiment 2, measurements of event-related potentials (ERPs) showed that, compared to normal lines, panels with no lines elicited a posterior positivity that was distinct from the frontal positivity evoked by anomalous lines. These results suggested that motion lines aid in the comprehension of depicted events. LORETA source localization implicated greater activation of visual and language areas when understanding was made more difficult by anomalous lines. Furthermore, in both experiments, participants' experience reading comics modulated these effects, suggesting motion lines are not tied to aspects of the visual system, but rather are conventionalized parts of the "vocabulary" of the visual language of comics.

Implied motion perception from a still image in infancy

Visual motion perception can arise from non-directional visual stimuli, such as still images (implied motion, cf. Kourtzi, Trends Cogn Sci 8:47-49, 2004). We tested 5- to 8-month-old infants' implied motion perception with two experiments using the forced-choice preferential looking method. Our results indicated that a still image of a person running toward either the left or right side significantly enhanced infants' visual preference for a visual target that consistently appeared on the same side as the running direction (the run condition in Experiment 1). Such enhanced visual preference disappeared in response to an image of the same person standing and facing the left/right side (the stand condition in Experiment 1), an image of the running figure covered with a set of opaque rectangles (the block condition in Experiment 2) (Gervais et al. in Atten Percept Psychophys 72:1437-1443, 2010), and an image of the inverted running figure (the inversion condition in Experiment 3). These results suggest that only the figure that implied dynamic body motion shifted the infants' visual preference to the same direction as the implied running action. These findings demonstrate that even infants as young as 5 to 8 months old are sensitive to the implied motion of static figures.