Highlights+ +U'We'used'a'recentlyUdeveloped'oddball'design'that'controls'for'repetition'effects' U'We'found'effects'of'surprise'but'not'expectation'suppression'on'ERPs' U'Surprise'responses'did'not'vary'by'stimulus'appearance'probability'

In the flash-lag effect (FLE), a flash in spatiotemporal alignment with a moving object is often misperceived as lagging behind the moving object. One proposed explanation for the illusion is based on predictive motion extrapolation of trajectories. In this interpretation, observers require an estimate of the object′s velocity to anticipate future positions, implying that the FLE is dependent on a neural representation of perceived velocity. By contrast, alternative models of the FLE based on differential latencies or temporal averaging should not rely on such a representation of velocity. Here, we test the extrapolation account by investigating whether the FLE is sensitive to illusory changes in perceived speed when physical speed is actually constant. This was tested using rotational wedge stimuli with variable noise texture (Experiment 1) and luminance contrast (Experiment 2). We show for both manipulations, differences in perceived speed corresponded to differences in the FLE: dynamic versus static noise, and low versus high contrast stimuli led to increases in perceived speed and FLE magnitudes. These effects were consistent across different textures and were not due to low-level factors. Our results support the idea that the FLE depends on a neural representation of velocity, which is consistent with mechanisms of motion extrapolation. Hence, the faster the perceived speed, the larger the extrapolation, the stronger the flash-lag.

No abstract