Illusory size determines the perception of ambiguous apparent motion

Abstract

The visual system constructs perceptions based on ambiguous information. For motion perception, the correspondence problem arises, i.e., the question of which object went where. We asked at which level of processing correspondence is solved – lower levels based on information that is directly available in the retinal input or higher levels based on information that has been abstracted beyond the input directly available at the retina? We used a Ponzo-like illusion to manipulate the perceived size and separations of elements in an ambiguous apparent motion display. Specifically, we presented Ternus displays – for which the type of motion that is perceived depends on how correspondence is resolved – at apparently different distances from the viewer using pictorial depth cues. We found that the perception of motion depended on the apparent depth of the displays, indicating that correspondence processes utilize information that is produced at higher-level processes.

Visual working memory content influences correspondence processes.

“…And finally, most directly comparable to the current work, are demonstrations of memory content influencing perceptual ambiguities in dynamic displays, including VWM content biasing perceptions of bistable shape-from-motion displays (Scocchia et al, 2013) and long-term semantic memory content influencing apparent motion (Chen & Zhou, 2011; Hsu et al, 2015; Ramachandran et al, 1998; Tse & Cavanagh, 2000; Yu, 2000). The current work brings together many of the design features of those previous studies and adds to them by providing insight into higher-level influence on object correspondence processes, in particular, as the ambiguity in Ternus motion, unlike the ambiguity in, for example, binocular rivalry and figure-ground perception, seems to concerns correspondence processes at higher level of processing (Hein & Moore, 2014; Stepper, Moore, et al, 2020a; see also Moore et al, 2020, for the distinction between motion and object correspondence).…”

“…This question was addressed by adding regions of apparently different illumination conditions and occluding surfaces to Ternus displays, which provided separate assessments of the impact of perceived features and image-level features on object correspondence (Hein & Moore, 2014; see also Palmer et al, 1996;Rock & Brosgole, 1964;Rock et al, 1992 for this strategy applied to perceptual grouping in static displays). This and related work showed that correspondence is influenced not only by the luminance, image size, and image shape of elements across frames, but also by the perceived lightness, perceived size, and perceived shape of elements (He & Nakayama, 1994;Hein & Moore, 2014;Stepper, Moore, et al, 2020a).…”

“…Given that surface features can influence correspondence as strongly as spatiotemporal coherence does, a further question is what level of surface feature representation is critical (He & Nakayama, 1994; Hein & Moore, 2014; Stepper, Moore, et al, 2020a)? Is it the similarity of features as they exist in the image itself, such as luminance, image size, and image shape, or is it the similarity of features as they are abstracted from the image to represent objects in the world, such as perceived reflectance (i.e., lightness ), perceived size, and perceived shape, which are representations that discount differences in apparent illumination and depth?…”