Holcombe:PositionAndMotion

SUPA Sydney University Perception and Action Lab Primer editing help refcard

Phenomenon	interval before transient (predictn)	interval after transient (postdictn)	Temporal Bias- increase w/speed, or temporal freq tuned	Spatial Variab	Temporal Variab	Foveo	attn effect	awareness necess	vector sum /IOC, hi-level motion	landmarks	Effect of motion dur	feature space	affects eyemove	retinal motn sufficnt	Spatial asymm (behind/in front of motion)
Flash-lag		yes	substantial in some participants and negative in some, but linear, implicating asynchrony[1] (see [2] for more refs). Except hi-speed testing found logarithmic[2]	0	80ms	petal[3],[4]	?		yes[5]	less spatial σ?	Increase[6], Decrease[7]	yes[8]
Flashes during smooth pursuit[9](in extrapolation direction), eliminated by longer flash creating contrary motion		yes[10] 200 ms[11]	large	??	discrepant Ss[12]	??	??		??	reduces[13]
Motion on nearby flash (flash-drag)[14]	~0[14, 15, 16]	80-200ms later matters[14, 15, 16], strongest for moving grating onsetting 100ms later[16] but peaks at reversal time in reversal paradigm[14, 15]	~0[14, 17]	??	betting0	??	Pre-attentive[18] but attending to a motion determines direction[19]					not early[20]			Large. Big ahead of tracked bars.[21]
Flash attracted toward position of motion[22], and endpoint of AM[23]		yes[24][25]	0[24],not much[25]
Offset localizatn lag			offset of blurred peaked at slow in [26], but high-speed LINEAR (or log?) to 70degpersec,implying 24ms[27] lag
Offset localizatn extrap / representational momentum (Josh review)		illusion bigger with eye move or pointing[28]? With fixatn[29] 33ms[30]	0 - increases with speed (with pointing response but not same/different judgment) but not enough for constant time[31]				Bigger with both split attention[29][32] and secondary task[29]
Offset localizatn with flash (flash-terminated)	Mixed evidence, depends on uncertainty?[4]		flash-terminated saturated at slow[4]
Twinkle goes (Offset localization transient-masked)	<<80ms?[33]	~50ms[33]	LINEAR in [34] implying 13 ms with 100ms fading time. LINEAR in [33] implying 50 ms, but saturation over 1.2rps. [35] found much smaller effect of speed								Larger with shorter duration[35]
Shrinkage of motion paths (related to offset localization)			linear but they test only 3 speeds, max 6.5 deg/sec or .74 rev/sec [36]				large, based on cloud test[37]
Flash-grab[37](putatively a way to measure the shrinkage effect)	~0[37], 12%[38], 25-50%[39]	Strongest when flash occurs at time of reversal, gradually declines as reversal occurs later until ~200 ms[37], whereas flash-drag stays substantial for up to 5s after reversal[15]	Linear (really, decelerating?) up to .75rps[37] (could continue faster if faster monitor?), suggesting 50ms. To be explained by temporal averaging, 100ms						mostly component, partly global motion[40]
Flash-jump[5, 41] feature change in apparent motion.[37]		Never tested	0[12, 42]	?	0?[12]	fugal[12]			yes[5]
Frame effect[43]			0[43]							reduces
Frohlich (whether it or onset repulsion found depends on task[44][45])	N/A		0[12],<27ms[46] fugal:10ms,petal:15ms[47],0-5ms[45],2-8ms[48],79ms[17] 39ms[49],100ms[50],18ms but nonlinear[27]	?	0	.5deg fugal:1.5deg, petal:0[47] [51],0whoopsIsThisTemporalError[12]	yes but didn't control for possible subject bias toward cue, and cue in other location didn't increase effect[47]	no[52]
onset-repuls			<=15ms[53],[30]
Facilitation ahead of moving object[52]
Double-drift / curveball	Accumulates for almost 1 s
MIPS blurred edges[54]			large[55][56] Tuned to temporal freq [57][54]	miniscule	miniscule	fugal[3]		No[58]	yes[56],[59]	No?	Saturating at 180ms[52]; dipping 60->90ms[55]
MIPS sharp edges[60]			read[61]	[61]	[61]	petal[61]
bg motion->IC[62]		not much? only 2 speeds tested[62]
Motion capture[63]
Motion adapt			saturat at 5degpersec/Hz[64]	~0[34]	~0[34]	fugal					Yes[34]	No[65]
binding				0[66]
Tandem[48]
induced motion		0?							Yes[67]
10Hz jitter[68]														yes
Floating square[69]														no
Eyeblink extrapolation		yes	no [70]
timed buttonpress
reverse rep-mo [71]

reverse rep-mo: "These displacements are in the direction opposite to displacements typically obtained in studies on the flash-lag effect and in studies on representational momentum, and the reasons for these differences are not clear. One possible explanation involves the time course of displacement. Freyd and Johnson (1987) reported forward displacement peaked after a few hundred milliseconds and then decreased, and they attributed this pattern to two distinct processes: an initial forward extrapolation process that displaced represented location in the direction of target motion (representational momentum) and a subsequent memory averaging process that displaced represented location toward an average of the stimulus locations. Depending upon the latency of judgment in Roulston et al. (which was not reported), the apparent reverse-repmo might reflect this subsequent memory averaging. This remains an issue for further research." Hubbard 2013

Miscellaneous

Flash-jump effect, with eight-bar sequence, results in activity for the flash being shifted in V4[72]

motion-defined motion contours also are perceived shifted[73]

• Importance of motion reversal or sudden onset: Cavanagh & Anstis (2013): The flash-grab effect is strongest when the flash occurs at the moment of reversal. When it occurred earlier or later, the effect dropped to quite small values. There is a large effect that extends 200 ms before and after the reversal. This fairly symmetrical effect contrasts to the asymmetrical and longer lasting effect seen for the flash drag stimulus (e.g., Whitney & Cavanagh, 2000a). With their stimulus, the effect also began 200-300 ms before the reversal, reaching a maximum at the time of the reversal, but then remained at that level for 2 s. Roach and McGraw (2009) found the flash drag effect was maximum at the time of a motion onset and decreased within a second to about half of its maximum, maintaining that level for as long as 5 s.

• Remapping or object prediction/postdiction: If it's for saccadic or head-movement remapping, would expect it would require large-field motion to be triggered, as opposed to motion of a small object being sufficient.

• Effect of speed and Wojtach et al. results that above 15 deg per second it starts to saturate, for a max of 2 dva!

It is fascinating that the FLE saturated at just 2 deg of visual angle! Is the authors’ explanation correct? Supporting evidence could come from other studies that would utilize a speed prior. At first I thought it might be an artifact of the researchers using linear trajectory and a small field of view (15 deg), but it certainly isn’t because of truncation by that 15 deg field of view. Although it could impair the initial percept, should be replicated with circular trajectories. Individual data is not shown , the paper just says similarity justified combining the individual data. I have not compared and contrasted with Linares Holcombe & White.

How to avoid contamination by representational momentum

"The forward shift and the reversal of the shift with time (memory averaging) were absent when both factors were randomized. Thus, the forward shift with implied motion is restricted to repeatedly observed motion sequences that allow for pre-trial motion prediction."[74]

Usually flash-lag type papers find no extrapolation in offset-synchronized condition. So is there something about a Freyd-type probe (judging last position relative to a probe like itself instead of relative to a contemporaneous flash) that causes the effect? This is consistent with memory effect because you need some temporal interval between stimulus stopping and the probe.

The following is invalid because they didn’t require or even ask for fixation, and work by Brenner et al “Flashes are localised as if they were moving with the eyes” , dating back to [9], shows that flashed during smooth pursuit are mislocalized in the direction of the eye movement, and smooth pursuit eye movements reflect anticipated reversals. Check the effect doesn't reverse when reversal is anticipated: "the target bounced within the confines of a square frame. Judged vanishing point was displaced in the anticipated direction, even when the anticipated direction was opposite to the current path of motion." [75]

Refs

Error fetching PMID 12968181
Error fetching PMID 30725096
Error fetching PMID 11448717
Error fetching PMID 19126535
Error fetching PMID 17461687
Error fetching PMID 17190608
Error fetching PMID 19653741
Error fetching PMID 18824016
Error fetching PMID 2102995
Error fetching PMID 11588202
Error fetching PMID 17643464
Error fetching PMID 15358076
Error fetching PMID 16645880
Error fetching PMID 14659962
Error fetching PMID 23872166
Error fetching PMID 3174353
Error fetching PMID 14614823
Error fetching PMID 10966628
Error fetching PMID 15208006
Error fetching PMID 11747866
Error fetching PMID 1949630
Error fetching PMID 17685797
Error fetching PMID 20055542
Error fetching PMID 18753324
Error fetching PMID 32804582
Error fetching PMID 1604838
Error fetching PMID 15358076
Error fetching PMID 18434509
Error fetching PMID 11991576
Error fetching PMID 9628999
Error fetching PMID 20055541
Error fetching PMID 1494610
Error fetching PMID 16522140
Error fetching PMID 12136384
Error fetching PMID 11809472
Error fetching PMID 10746140
Error fetching PMID 25782364
Error fetching PMID 19761786
Error fetching PMID 27690171
Error fetching PMID 27464844
Error fetching PMID 2726403
Error fetching PMID 3940050
Error fetching PMID 19812288
Error fetching PMID 9843685
Error fetching PMID 18717394
Error fetching PMID 22080448
Error fetching PMID 12798145
Error fetching PMID 15330702
Error fetching PMID 15607351
Error fetching PMID 17697692
Error fetching PMID 34673899
Error fetching PMID 10050853
Error fetching PMID 34131080
Error fetching PMID 18831614
Error fetching PMID 10769390
Error fetching PMID 16039690
Error fetching PMID 16774774
Error fetching PMID 16446147
Error fetching PMID 21415228
Error fetching PMID 15773605
Error fetching PMID 17184808
Error fetching PMID 17154779
Error fetching PMID 15886084
Error fetching PMID 18852459
Error fetching PMID 16359721
Error fetching PMID 16959642

9. Hazelhoff FF, Wiersma H. Die Wahrnehmungszeit [The sensation time]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 1924;96:171-188

12. Linares D, Holcombe AO. https://osf.io/3t542/. 2008. Reported at VSS 2009, Dissociating motion-induced position illusions by the velocity dependence of both their magnitude and their variability.

17. Whitney D, Cavanagh P. (2002) Surrounding motion affects the perceived locations of moving stimuli. Visual Cognition 9:139–152.

28. Representation Momentum Beyond Internalized Physics. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005; 14:4

29. Hayes Amy E, Freyd J (2002) Representational momentum when attention is divided. Visual cognition 9:8-27.

32. Hayes,A.E., Freyd, J.J.(1995). Attention and representational momentumm (Tech.Rep.No.9512). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences.

35. Motion Extrapolation in the Twinkle Goes Illusion: Effects of Speed, Contrast and Duration. Honours thesis with Hinze Hogendoorn

39. pmid= 36445715

41. 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

66. 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

74. A matter of design: No representational momentum without predictability. Visual Cognition

76. http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~farshadm/demo/