Antagonistic effects of adjacency and apparent speed in induced movement.

Schulman, Paul H.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.5.985

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings concerning the variation of velocity sensitivity and receptive field size with eccentricity are also consistent with the variation of effectiveness of inducing stimuli according to size and speed (Schulman, 1981) and can be related to spatialfrequency findings (Levi & Schor, 1984). A low-spatial-frequency grating occupies a larger distance per cycle than a highfrequency grating, which suggests that the former tends to stimulate neurons that have large receptive fields and are sensitive to high velocity (see Adjacency, Spatial Frequency, and Their Interaction With Speed section).…”

Section: Sensory and Neural Processessupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Variations of the frame stimulus involve filling the frame with pattern (e.g., Bacon, Gordon, & Schulman, 1982;Wallach & Becklen, 1983). The shape of the frame is normally rectangular, although circular frames have also been used (e.g., Schulman, 1981;Wallach, 1959). There is no evidence that shape of frame has much effect on induced movement.…”

Section: Types Of Displaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evidence concerning frame-and-spot induced movement (Schulman, 1981) suggests that the adjacency of an inducing stimulus may be modified by its speed; In essence, Schulman (1981) showed that the speed of a smaller inducing stimulus needed to be lower than the speed of a larger inducing stimulus for them to be equally effective given that they were in the same plane. This finding seems related to the perception of speed in moving patterns of different sizes: A smaller pattern is required to move at a slower physical speed than a larger pattern, for them to have phenomenally equal speeds (Brown, 1931;Diener, Wist, Dichgans, & Brandt, 1976).…”

Section: Adjacency Spatial Frequency and Their Interaction With Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within limits (e.g., Day et al, 1979), the degree of absolute peripheralness of the inducing stimulus appears relatively unimportant (e.g., Reinhardt-Rutland, 1981). The possible linking of (a) size and spatial frequency and (b) speed of inducing stimulus in some displays (Levi & Schor, 1984;Schulman, 1981;Adjacency, Spatial Frequency, and Their Interaction With Speed section) could reflect the fact that in normal forward locomotion of humans, visual motion from a stationary environment increases with eccentricity in the observer's visual field.…”

Section: Induced Movement and General Visual Perception Of Object Motionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview.

Reinhardt-Rutland¹

1988

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Induced movement, illusory movement in a stationary stimulus resulting from adjoining movement, has received steady experimental investigation over the last 70 years or so. It is observed under different viewing conditions in a wide variety of displays that differ considerably in overall size and in form of inducing and induced stimuli. Explanations have been diverse, some being based on relations within the display and others invoking mediation by other aspects of the observer's perception. Probably, no one explanation can account for all forms of induced movement. Current knowledge about induced movement may have important implications for visual perception of object morion. Among possibly important factors is size of display, which can vary from two small spots (e.g., Carr & Hardy, 1920) to displays occupying most of the observer's visual field (e.g., Post, 1986).A second major purpose of this overview is to examine explanations for induced movement (Explanations section). Duncker's (1929Duncker's ( /1938 findings have had an important influence here, although many of his suggestions have subsequently been shown to require at least some modification. For example, his theory I thank J. Morss for reading an earlier version of this article, J. Ravey for translation, and two anonymous referees for helpful suggestions.

show abstract

Section: Sensory and Neural Processessupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Types Of Displaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adjacency Spatial Frequency and Their Interaction With Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Induced Movement and General Visual Perception Of Object Motionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview.

Reinhardt-Rutland¹

1988

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(e.g., Bassili & Farber, 1977;Schulman, 1981), but induced motion can also be rotational 198 1) and three-dimensional-toward and away from the observer (Farne, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced Rotational Motion With Nonabutting Inducing and Induced Stimuli: Implications Regarding Two Forms of Induced Motion

Reinhardt-Rutland

2003

The Journal of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Induced motion is the illusory motion of a static stimulus in the opposite direction to a moving stimulus. Two types of induced motion have been distinguished: (a) when the moving stimulus is distant from the static stimulus and undergoes overall displacement, and (b) when the moving stimulus is pattern viewed within fixed boundaries that abut the static stimulus. Explanations of the 1st type of induced motion refer to mediating phenomena, such as vection, whereas the 2nd type is attributed to local processing by motion-sensitive neurons. The present research was directed to a display that elicited induced rotational motion with the characteristics of both types of induced motion: the moving stimulus lay within fixed boundaries, but the inducing and induced stimuli were distant from each other. The author investigated the properties that distinguished the two types of induced motion. In 3 experiments, induced motion persisted indefinitely, interocular transfer of the aftereffect of induced motion was limited to about 20%, and the time-course of the aftereffect of induced motion could not be attributed to vection. Those results were consistent with fixed-boundary induced motion. However, they could not be explained by local processing. Instead, the results might reflect the detection of object motion within a complex flow-field that resulted from the observer's motion.

show abstract

Motion perception and spatial orientation.

Sherrick¹

1998

Viewing Psychology as a Whole: the Integrative Science of William N. Dember.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, visually perceived motion is attributed to three cues, acting singly or in combination. (See Goldstein, 1996, chap. 7, for a good review of traditional motion perception theory and research.) First, the visual system monitors the positional changes of a moving image across a stationary retina and attributes this systematic displacement to movement of the stimulus. Second, pursuit eye movements, and in particular the command to move the eyes, provide a cue for perceived motion. Thus, a bird in flight that is fixated by the observer will appear to move because the brain monitors the command to move the eyes.Retinal displacement and pursuit eye movement cues are usually considered together. The basic idea is that the brain interprets retinal displacement cues differently depending on whether or not the eyes have been directly commanded to move. Thus, the bird in flight described previously, which is relatively stationary on the observer's retina, is nevertheless seen to move because the image's stability on the retina is attributed to tracking eye movements. Conversely, the truly stationary environment does not seem to move when we move our eyes because the brain attributes the displacement of the environment across the retina to the eye movements.Third, another cue for motion perception involves not the observer, as do the first two cues, but rather the stimulus array. In particular, the dynamic stimulus relationship cue accounts for motion perception in terms of the changing spatial relationships among stimuli. A stationary observer with stationary eyes sees a running dog as moving, for example, because the dog changes its relationship systematically with respect to other stimuli in the field of view. The importance of the dynamic stimulus relationship cue for motion perception is well established and indeed some (Gibson and other ecological psychologists; see Blake, 1994) argue that it is the primary cue.Many phenomena of motion perception can be explained in terms of these three cues. Space limitations permit only a few examples. (a) As would be expected, thresholds for perceiving motion are lower when all 46

show abstract

Antagonistic effects of adjacency and apparent speed in induced movement.

Cited by 7 publications

References 23 publications

Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview.

Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview.

Induced Rotational Motion With Nonabutting Inducing and Induced Stimuli: Implications Regarding Two Forms of Induced Motion

Motion perception and spatial orientation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About