Skip to main content

The Z-Box illusion: dominance of motion perception among multiple 3D objects

Abstract

In the present article, we examine a novel illusion of motion—the Z-Box illusion—in which the presence of a bounding object influences the perception of motion of an ambiguous stimulus that appears within. Specifically, the stimuli are a structure-from-motion (SFM) particle orb and a wireframe cube. The orb could be perceived as rotating clockwise or counterclockwise while the cube could only be perceived as moving in one direction. Both stimuli were presented on a two-dimensional (2D) display with inferred three-dimensional (3D) properties. In a single experiment, we examine motion perception of a particle orb, both in isolation and when it appears within a rotating cube. Participants indicated the orb’s direction of motion and whether the direction changed at any point during the trial. Accuracy was the critical measure while motion direction, the number of particles in the orb and presence of the wireframe cube were all manipulated. The results suggest that participants could perceive the orb’s true rotation in the absence of the cube so long as it was made up of at least ten particles. The presence of the cube dominated perception as participants consistently perceived congruent motion of the orb and cube, even when they moved in objectively different directions. These findings are considered as they relate to prior research on motion perception, computational modelling of motion perception, structure from motion and 3D object perception.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Availability of data and material

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Code availability

Experimental and data processing code are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Andersen, R. A., & Bradley, D. C. (1998). Perception of three-dimensional structure from motion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(6), 222–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01181-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradley, D. R., & Petry, H. M. (1977). Organizational determinants of subjective contour: The subjective necker cube. The American Journal of Psychology, 90(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422047 JSTOR.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Caudek, C., & Domini, F. (1998). Perceived orientation of axis rotation in structure-from-motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2), 609.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Domini, F., & Caudek, C. (2003). 3-D structure perceived from dynamic information: A new theory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10), 444–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Domini, F., & Caudek, C. (2010). Matching perceived depth from disparity and from velocity: Modeling and psychophysics. Acta Psychologica, 133(1), 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Domini, F., Vuong, Q. C., & Caudek, C. (2002). Temporal integration in structure from motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(4), 816.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Erlikhman, G., Caplovitz, G. P., Gurariy, G., Medina, J., & Snow, J. C. (2018). Towards a unified perspective of object shape and motion processing in human dorsal cortex. Consciousness and Cognition, 64, 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.04.016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Erlikhman, G., Fu, M., Dodd, M. D., & Caplovitz, G. P. (2019). The motion-induced contour revisited: Observations on 3-D structure and illusory contour formation in moving stimuli. Journal of Vision, 19(1), 7–7. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.1.7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoffman, D. D., & Bennett, B. M. (1986). The computation of structure from fixed-axis motion: Rigid structures. Biological Cybernetics, 54(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00320477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jain, A., & Zaidi, Q. (2011). Discerning nonrigid 3D shapes from motion cues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(4), 1663–1668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Köhler, W. (1970). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology (Vol. 18). WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Miles, W. R. (1931). Movement interpretations of the Silhouette of a Revolving Fan. The American Journal of Psychology, 43(3), 392–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/1414610 JSTOR.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nawrot, M., & Blake, R. (1989). Neural integration of information specifying structure from stereopsis and motion. Science, 244(4905), 716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2717948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramachandran, V. S., Cobb, S., & Rogers-Ramachandran, D. (1988). Perception of 3-D structure from motion: The role of velocity gradients and segmentation boundaries. Perception & Psychophysics, 44(4), 390–393. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers, B., & Graham, M. (1979). Motion parallax as an independent cue for depth perception. Perception, 8(2), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shipley, T. F., & Kellman, P. J. (1992). Strength of visual interpolation depends on the ratio of physically specified to total edge length. Perception & Psychophysics, 52(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Treue, S., Husain, M., & Andersen, R. A. (1991). Human perception of structure from motion. Vision Research, 31(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(91)90074-F

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ullman, S. (1979). The interpretation of structure from motion. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series b. Biological Sciences, 203(1153), 405–426.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ullman, S. (1984). Maximizing rigidity: The incremental recovery of 3-D structure from rigid and Nonrigid motion. Perception, 13(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1068/p130255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wallach, H., & O’Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(4), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Weiss, Y., & Adelson, E. H. (1998). Slow and smooth: A Bayesian theory for the combination of local motion signals in human vision. Technical report A.I. Memo No. 1624, MIT.

  23. Weiss, Y., & Adelson, E. H. (2000). Adventures with gelatinous ellipses—constraints on models of human motion analysis. Perception, 29(5), 543–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weiss, Y., Simoncelli, E. P., & Adelson, E. H. (2002). Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nature Neuroscience, 5(6), 598–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wuerger, S., Shapley, R., & Rubin, N. (1996). “On the visually perceived direction of motion” by Hans Wallach: 60 years later. Perception, 25(11), 1317–1367. https://doi.org/10.1068/p251317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yu, D., Levinthal, B., & Franconeri, S. L. (2017). Feature-based attention resolves depth ambiguity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 804–809. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1155-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by National Science Foundation OIA 1632849 to MDD and colleagues. The authors would like to thank our research assistant Joshua Warren, who provided invaluable assistance in data collection and presentation of findings.

Funding

This project was supported by NSF OIA 1632849 (RII Track-2 FEC: Neural networks underlying the integration of knowledge and perception) to MDD and colleagues.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JEZ. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JEZ and both authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua E. Zosky.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics approval

The approval was obtained from the ethics committee of University of Nebraska – Lincoln. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Participants signed informed consent regarding publishing their anonymous data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file2 (MP4 26,101 KB)

Supplementary file3 (MP4 14,870 KB)

Supplementary file4 (MP4 5782 KB)

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 62 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zosky, J.E., Dodd, M.D. The Z-Box illusion: dominance of motion perception among multiple 3D objects. Psychological Research (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01589-0

Download citation