Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 191–201 | Cite as

Motion-induced illusory displacement reexamined: differences between perception and action?

  • Dirk KerzelEmail author
  • Karl R. Gegenfurtner
Research Article

Abstract

The position of a drifting sine-wave grating enveloped by a stationary Gaussian is misperceived in the direction of motion. Previous research indicated that the illusion was larger when observers pointed to the center of the stimulus than when they indicated the stimulus position on a ruler. This conclusion was reexamined. Observers pointed to the position of a small Gabor patch on the screen or compared its position to moving patches, stationary lines, or flashed lines. With moving patches, the illusion was larger with probe than with motor judgments; with stationary lines, the illusion was about the same size; and with flashed lines, the illusion was smaller with probe than with motor judgments. Thus, the comparison between perceptual and motor measures depended strongly on the methods used. Further, the target was mislocalized toward the fovea with motor judgments, whereas the target was displaced away from the fovea relative to line probes.

Keywords

Action Extrapolation Illusion Motion Perception Pointing Position judgments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG KE 825/3-1 and 825/4-1,2). We wish to thank Nina Barthel, Jana Buchmann, Julia Verena Hardt, and Fereshteh Zahir-Fard for helping with data collection.

References

  1. Aglioti S, DeSouza JF, Goodale MA (1995) Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol 5:679–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bischof N, Kramer E (1968) [Investigations and considerations of directional perception during voluntary saccadic eye movements]. Psychologische Forschung 32:185–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock O (1986) Contribution of retinal versus extraretinal signals towards visual localization in goal-directed movements. Exp Brain Res 64:476–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bridgeman B (1998) Durations of stimuli displayed on video display terminals: (n-1)/f + Persistence. Psychol Sci 9:232–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bridgeman B (2002) Attention and visually guided behavior in distinct systems. In: Prinz W, Hommel B (eds) Common mechanisms in perception and action—attention and performance, vol. XIX. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. De Valois RL, De Valois KK (1991) Vernier acuity with stationary moving Gabors. Vis Res 31:1619–1626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Franz VH (2001) Action does not resist visual illusions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5:457–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Franz VH, Gegenfurtner KR, Bülthoff HH, Fahle M (2000) Grasping visual illusions: no evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychol Sci 11:20–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Henriques DY, Klier EM, Smith MA, Lowy D, Crawford JD (1998) Gaze-centered remapping of remembered visual space in an open-loop pointing task. J Neurosci 18:1583–1594PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubbard TL (1995) Environmental invariants in the representation of motion: implied dynamics and representational momentum, gravity, friction, and centripetal force. Psychon Bull Rev 2:322–338Google Scholar
  12. Kerzel D (2002) Memory for the position of stationary objects: disentangling foveal bias and memory averaging. Vis Res 42:159–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kerzel D (2003) Mental extrapolation of target position is strongest with weak motion signals and motor responses. Vis Res 43:2623–2635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kerzel D, Gegenfurtner KR (2003) Neuronal processing delays are compensated in the sensorimotor branch of the visual system. Curr Biol 13:1975–1978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lemij HG, Collewijn H (1989) Differences in accuracy of human saccades between stationary and jumping targets. Vis Res 29:1737–1748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Milner D, Dyde R (2003) Why do some perceptual illusions affect visually guided action, when others don’t? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:10–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Müsseler J, Stork S, Kerzel D (2002) Comparing mislocalizations with moving stimuli. The Fröhlich effect, the flash-lag effect and representational momentum. Vis Cogn 9:120–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neggers SF, Bekkering H (2000) Ocular gaze is anchored to the target of an ongoing pointing movement. J Neurophysiol 83:639–651PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nijhawan R (1994) Motion extrapolation in catching. Nature 370:256–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nijhawan R (2002) Neural delays, visual motion and the flash-lag effect. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramachandran VS, Anstis SM (1990) Illusory displacement of equiluminous kinetic edges. Perception 19:611–616PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sheth BR, Shimojo S (2001) Compression of space in visual memory. Vis Res 41:329–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sheth BR, Shimojo S (2003) Signal strength determines the nature of the relationship between perception and working memory. J Cogn Neurosci 15:173–184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sparks DL (2002) The brainstem control of saccadic eye movements. Nature Review Neuroscience 3:952–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Whitney D, Goltz HC, Thomas CG, Gati JS, Menon RS, Goodale MA (2003) Flexible retinotopy: motion-dependent position coding in the visual cortex. Science 302:878–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Yamagishi N, Anderson SJ, Ashida H (2001) Evidence for dissociation between the perceptual and visuomotor systems in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:973–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FB 06 Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft, Abteilung Allgemeine PsychologieJustus-Liebig-Universität GießenGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations