Holcombe:PositionAndMotion

Miscellaneous

motion-defined motion contours also are perceived shifted DurantZanker09

Refs
moving stimuli. Visual Cognition 9:139–152.
 * 1) ArnoldJohnston03 pmid=12968181
 * 2) CaiSchlag01 Cai, R., & Schlag, J. (2001). A new form of illusory conjunction between color and shape [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 1(3):127, 127a, http://journalofvision.org/1/3/127/, doi:10.1167/1.3.127
 * 3) DurantZanker09 pmid=19126535
 * 4) EaglemanSejnowski07 pmid=17461687
 * 5) ChungEtAl07 pmid=17190608
 * 6) FanHarris08 pmid=18824016
 * 7) RamaAnstis90 pmid=2102995
 * 8) FuShenDan01 pmid=11588202
 * 9) ArnoldThompsonJohnston pmid=17643464
 * 10) KanaiShethShimojo04 pmid=15358076
 * 11) CarbonePomplun07 pmid=16645880
 * 12) DurantJohnston pmid=14659962
 * 13) WhitneyCavanagh02 Whitney D, Cavanagh P. (2002) Surrounding motion affects the perceived locations of
 * 1) WhitneyCavanagh00 pmid=10966628
 * 2) HazelhoffWiersma1924 Hazelhoff FF, Wiersma H. Die Wahrnehmungszeit [The sensation time]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 1924;96:171-188
 * 3) Kerzel05 Representation Momentum Beyond Internalized Physics. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005; 14:4
 * 4) MusselerKerzel04 pmid=15208006
 * 5) HubbardMotes pmid=11747866
 * 6) deValois91 pmid=1949630
 * 7) LinaresHolcombe2008neurophys pmid=18753324
 * 8) LinaresHolcombe2008xx Linares D, Holcombe AO. Unpublished results. 2008. Reported at VSS 2009, Dissociating motion-induced position illusions by the velocity dependence of both their magnitude and their variability.
 * 9) Moradi http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~farshadm/demo/
 * 10) WhiteLeviAitsebaomo1992 pmid=1604838
 * 11) KanaiShethShimojo04 pmid=15358076
 * 12) deSperati08 pmid=18434509
 * 13) Thornton02 pmid=11991576
 * 14) Musseler98 pmid=9628999
 * 15) RiderMcOwanJohnston09 pmid=20055541
 * 16) MusselerNeumann92 pmid=1494610
 * 17) CarlsonSchraterHe06 pmid=16522140
 * 18) Kerzel02 pmid=12136384
 * 19) KerzelMusseler02 pmid=11809472
 * 20) Kirschfeld98 pmid=10746140
 * 21) MatherPavan2009 pmid=19761786
 * 22) PostEtAl89 pmid=2726403
 * 23) RamaInada1985 pmid=3940050
 * 24) RoachMcGraw09 pmid=19812288
 * 25) Snowden98 pmid=9843685
 * 26) Gauch08 pmid=18717394
 * 27) RotmanBS04 pmid=15330702
 * 28) YilmazEtAl07 pmid=17697692
 * 29) NishidaJohnston99 pmid=10050853
 * 30) LiKhuuHayes09 pmid=18831614
 * 31) ShethNijhawanShimojo pmid=10769390
 * 32) Holcombe09 Holcombe, A.O. (2009). Temporal binding favors the early phase of color changes, but not of motion changes, yielding the color-motion asynchrony illusion. Visual Cognition- Special issue on binding, 17(1-2), 232-253. doi:10.1080/13506280802340653
 * 33) WatanabeSatoShimojo pmid=17184808
 * 34) Whitney06 pmid=17154779
 * 35) Whitney05 pmid=15886084
 * 36) BresslerWhitney06 pmid=16359721

&bull; Biphasic Neuron Extrap &bull; A-V flash lag &bull; foveo fugal/petal biases

Temporal variability might arise from:
 * 1) Position shifting that increases with velocity, with constant noise added to velocity
 * 2) Uncertainty in *when* the judgment was supposed to be made
 * 3) For any effects caused by afferent latency (Hazelhoff?), variability in latency

deValois stands out as only temporal bias with spatial variability. Then why doesn't Cai and Frohlich have temporal bias? Only easy explanation would be the possibly-greater blur of the deValois stimuli, so we have to check that. Increasing eccentricity would also increase the spatial uncertainty WhiteLeviAitsebaomo1992 perhaps allowing temporal to manifest


 * The idea of separate position representations (e.g. for first- and second-order motion as suggested by Pavan & Mather 2008) is really fascinating
 * Nicolls,Mattingley,Berberovic,Smith,&Bradshaw(2004) review horiz/vert asymmetries we should check out for ideas
 * To explain the Cai & Schlag smooth pursuit flash mislocalisation effect, Rotman, Brenner, Smeets (2005) suggest that efference copy motion signal is combined with (absent) retinal motion of flash to yield extrapolation. They present their whack-a-mole targets for variable duration and find the longer the exposure duration, the less mislocalization in the direction of the eye movement. They theorize that the reason is that the longer targets have more retinal motion opposite the pursuit, so this cancels the efference copy to eliminate the extrapolation. An alternative account is that longer exposure improves the integration with spatiotopically stationary landmarks, reducing the reliance on the retinotopic code. Since this does not help for targets moving with the eyes, would have to posit that stabilization thanks to landmarks doesn't happen with moving targets. But this seems unlikely. I would like to see 1) Mislocalization when target moves in orthogonal direction 2) Whether variability (presumably spatial in both cases, since we find spatial for Cai&Schlag), which might implicate growth of a spatial code.