Abstract
This research was undertaken to demonstrate, with correlational evidence, that presenting the rod-and-frame test (RIT) with either limited (tachistoscopic) or unlimited (Oltman’s, 1968, portable RFT) exposure time does not significantly affect the ranking of subjects. The underlying hypothesis is that the intersubject variability of performance on the portable RFT is due essentially to differences in sensitivity to the optostatic vection that appears automatically and almost immediately. Results of the tachistoscopic test show that the effect of angular size of the stimulus is similar to that described in the literature for unlimited time situations, and that subjects’ ranking is very similar regardless of the exposure time (W = .80). However, although a difference is observed between the means of low and high achievers in both types of RFT, intraindividual intertask homogeneity (correlation coefficient) is not verified in each of these subgroups. From these results, one can distinguish two processes in the RFT: the first, vections, has to do with the subject’s postural orientation and seems to playa great role in organizing interindividual differences. The second process, a more cognitive one, has a less striking effect and has to do with the selection of reference frames in perceptual organization.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cian, C., & Ohlmann, T. (1987, September).Differential study of eye movements during optostatic vection induced by a tilted frame. Paper presented at The Fourth European Conference on Eye Movements, Göttingen, Federal Republic of Germany.
Clément, G., Jacquin, I., &Berthoz, A. (1985). Habituation of postural readjustment induced by motion of visual scenes. In M. Igarashi & F. O. Black (Eds.),Vestibular and visualcontrol on posture and locomotor equilibrium (pp. 99–104). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
Daunton, N. G., Christensen, C.A., &Thomsen, D. D. (1981). Visual modulation of otolith responses: A paradigm for the study of self-motion perceptionandits neural substrate. In T. Gualtierroti (Ed.),The vestibular system: Function and morphology (pp. 452–462). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Daunton, N., &Thomsen, D. (1979). Visual modulation of otolithdependent units in cat vestibular nuclei.Experimental Brain Research,37, 173–176.
Dewrme, A., &Martin, C. (1986). Role of retinal periphery anddepth periphery in linear vection and visual control of standing in humans.Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 176–187.
Dichgans, J., &Brandt, T. (1972). Visual-vestibular interaction and motion perception. In J. Dichgans & E. Bizzi (Eds.),Cerebral control of eye movements and motion perception (pp. 327–338). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
Dichgans, J., &Brandt, T. (1978). Visual-vestibular interaction: Effects on self-motion perception and postural control. In R. Held, H. W. Leibowitz, & H.-L. Teuber (Eds.),Handbook of sensory physiology: Vol. 7. Perception (pp. 756–804). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dichgans, J., Young, L. R., Brandt, T., &Hew, R. (1972). Moving visual scenes influence apparent direction of gravity.Science,178, 1215–1217.
Di Lorenzo, J. R., &Rock, I. (1982). The rod and frame effect as a function of righting the frame.Journal of Experimental Psychology,8, 536–546.
Ebenholtz, S. M. (1977). Determinants of the rod and frame effect: The role of retinal size.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 531–538.
Ebenholtz, S. M. (1985a). Absence of relational determination in the rod-and-frame effect.Perception & Psychophysics,37, 303–306.
Ebenholtz, S. M. (1985b). Depth separation fails to modulate the orientation-inhibition effect.Perception & Psychophysics,37, 533–535.
Ebenholtz, S. M., &Benzschawel, T. L. (1977). Therod and frame effect and induced head tilt as a function of observation distance.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 491–496.
Ebenholtz, S. M., &Glaser, G. W. (1982). Absence of depth processing in the large-frame rod-and-frame effect.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 134–140.
Ebenholtz, S. M., &Utrie, J. W., Jr. (1982). Inhibition of the rodand-frame effect by circular contours.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 199–200.
Ebenholtz, S. M., &Utrie, J. W., Jr. (1983). Peripheral circular contours inhibit the visual orientation control system.Aviation, Space & Environmental Medicine,54, 343–346.
Goodenough, D. R., Nowak, A., Oltman, P. K., Cox, P. W., &Sigman, E. (1982).A visually induced illusion of body tilt in a horizontal plane.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 419–424.
Goodenough, D. R., Oltman, P. K., &Cox, P. W. (1987). The nature of individual differences in field depeodence.Journal of Research in Personality,21, 81–99.
Goodenough, D. R., Oltman, P. K., Sigman, E., Rosso, J., &Mertz, H. (1979). Orientation contrast effects in the rod-and-frame test.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 419–424.
Hughes, P. C., Brecher, G. A., &Fishkin, S. M. (1972). Effects of rotating backgrounds upon the perception of verticality.Perception & Psychophysics,11, 135–138.
Humphreys, G. W. (1983). Reference frames and shape perception.Cognitive Psychology,15, 151–196.
Marendaz, C. (1987). Contextes, referentiels et fonctionnements perceptifs, In M. Reuchlin, F. Longeot, C. Marendaz, & T. Ohlmann (Eds.),Connaître différemment (pp. 43–64). Nancy, France: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
Mauritz, K. H., Dichgans, J., &Hufschmidt, A. (1977). The angle of visual roll motion determines displacement of subjective vertical.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 557–562.
Ohlmann, T. (1985). Variabilite intraindividuelle et fonctionnement cognitif. In J. Drévillon, M. Huteau, F. Longeot, M. Moscato, & T. Ohlmann (Eds.),Fonctionnement cognitifet individualité (pp. 185–230). Brussels, Belgium: Mardaga.
Ohlmann, T. (1987). La perception dela verticale lors de conflits vision/ posture: Un exemple de processus vicariants. In M. Reuchlin, F. Longeot, C. Marendaz, & T. Ohlmann (Eds.),Connaitre differemment (pp. 19–42). Nancy, France: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
Oltman, P. K. (1968). A portable rod-and-frame apparatus.Perceptual & Motor Skills,26, 503–506.
O’toole, B. I. (1979). Exposure-lime and spatial-frequency effects in the tilt illusion.Perception,8, 557–564.
Palmer, S. E. (1983). The psychology of perceptual organization: A transformal approach. In J. Beck, B. Hope, & A. Rosenfeld (Eds.),Human and machine vision (pp. 269–339). New York: Academic Press.
Rock, I. (1983).The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
Sekuler, R., &Littlejohn, J. (1974). Tilt aftereffect following very brief exposures.Vision Research,14, 151–152.
Sigman, E., Goodenough, D. R., &Flannagan, M. (1978). Subjective estimates of body tilt and the rod and frame test.Perceptual & Motor Skills,47, 1051–1056.
Sigman, E., Goodenough, D. R., &Flannagan, M. (1979). lnstructions, illusory self tilt and the rod and frame test.Quanerly Journal of Experimental Psychology,31, 155–165.
Streibel, M. J., &Ebenholtz, S. M. (1982). Construct vaidity of perceptual style: Role of stimulus size in the embedded-figures test and the rod-and-frame test.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 128–138.
Waespe, W., &Henn, V. (1977). Neuronal activity in the vestibular nuclei of the alert monkey during vestibular and opto-kinetic stimulation.Experimental Brain Research,27, 523–538.
Witkjn, H. A. (1949). Perception of body position and of the position of the visual field.Psychological Monographs,63, 1–46.
Witkjn, H. A., &Asch, S. (1948). Studies in space orientation: IV. Perception of the upright in the absence of visual field. Further experiments on perception of the upright with visual fields.Journal of Experimental Psychology,38, 762–782.
Witkjn, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, K., Weissner, B. P., &Wapner, S. (1954).Personality through perception. New York: Harper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was sponsored by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, UA 665), the Ministère de la Défense (DRET contract 86/047), and the Université des Sciences Sociales de Grenoble.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marendaz, C., Brenet, F., Ohlmann, T. et al. Solving the rod-and-frame test in a tachistoscopic presentation: Effects of stimulus size and perceptual style. Perception & Psychophysics 44, 445–450 (1988). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210429
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210429