Paradoxical stabilization of relative position in moving frames

Özkan, Mert; Anstis, Stuart; Hart, Bernard Marius ’t; Wexler, Mark; Cavanagh, Patrick

doi:10.1101/2021.01.23.427924

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previously, the frame effect has been shown to be a remarkably strong illusion, separating aligned flashes by as much as the distance the frame travels (Wong & Mack, 1981;Özkan et al, 2021). Here we explored a wide number of factors to evaluate their influence on the effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…However, this earlier literature on frame effects typically examined static (Duncker, 1929) or continuously moving probes (Wallach et al, 1978). In contrast, moving frames give far larger effects for flashed rather than continuous probes (Wong & Mack, 1981;Özkan et al, 2021). The illusory offsets can be as large as the frame's displacement, as if the flashes were seen in the frame's coordinates and the frame were not moving.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the Frame Effect

Cavanagh

Anstis

Lisi

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Probes flashed within a moving frame are dramatically displaced (Ozkan et al, 2021; Wong & Mack, 1981). The effect is much larger than that seen on static or moving probes (induced motion, Duncker, 1929; Wallach et al, 1978). These flashed probes are often perceived with the separation they have in frame coordinates -- a 100% effect. Here we explore this frame effect on flashed tests with several versions of the standard stimulus. We find that the frame effect holds for smoothly or abruptly displacing frames, even when the frame changed shape or orientation between the endpoints of its travel. The path could be non-linear, even circular. The effect was driven by perceived not physical motion. When there were competing overlapping frames, the effect was determined by which frame was attended. There were a number of constraints that limited the effect. A static anchor near the flashes suppressed the effect but an extended static texture did not. If the probes were continuous rather than flashed, the effect was abolished. The results suggest that the frame effect is robust to many variations in its shape and path and leads to a perception of flashed tests in their locations relative to the frame as if the frame were stationary.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Frame Effect

Cavanagh

Anstis

Lisi

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, apparent motion of a stationary object induced by a moving background (Duncker, 1929) may be enhanced if the object itself is moving perpendicular to the background motion (Wallach et al, 1978). This effect is even stronger when the target is briefly flashed within a moving frame (Özkan et al, 2021;Cavanagh et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The combination of target motion and dynamic changes in context greatly enhance visual size illusions

Mruczek

Fanelli

Kelly

et al. 2022

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceived size is a function of viewing distance, retinal images size, and various contextual cues such as linear perspective and the size and location of neighboring objects. Recently, we demonstrated that illusion magnitudes of classic visual size illusions may be greatly enhanced or reduced by adding dynamic elements. Specifically, a dynamic version of the Ebbinghaus illusion (classically considered a “size contrast” illusion) led to a greatly enhanced illusory effect, whereas a dynamic version of the Corridor illusion (a “size constancy” illusion) led to a greatly diminished illusory effect. Although these differences may arise from the different processes underlying these illusions (size contrast vs. size constancy), the dynamic variants we tested in our previous work also differed in the nature of the dynamic elements; specifically, whereas the Dynamic Ebbinghaus included a moving target and inducers that changed size and position, the Dynamic Corridor only included a moving target on a static background. Here, we explore further dynamic versions of the Ebbinghaus illusion and the Corridor and Ponzo illusions by separately manipulating three types of dynamic elements: target motion, context translation, and dynamic changes in context. Across five experiments examining 21 dynamic illusory configurations, adding target motion or a dynamically changing context separately resulted in little-to-no illusory effect. In contrast, the combination of target motion and a dynamically changing context led to a robust size illusion, consistent with an interactive effect. However, illusory effects that exceeded the matched classic, static illusory configuration were only observed for the dynamic versions of the Ebbinghaus illusion and the Revealed Ponzo illusions, in which the contextual elements changed size. We conclude that the combination of target motion and a dynamically changing context are necessary to produce dynamic size illusions, but that enhancement above and beyond static illusions may be largely specific to size contrast effects. Our results have important implications for the integration of motion signals, a ubiquitous environmental stimulus, in the perception of object size.

show abstract

“…Where do we see objects? The perceived position of flashed targets does not depend entirely on their physical location but is also strongly influenced by their context, in particular by the presence of moving frames that can drag flashed objects along with them (Cavanagh & Anstis, 2013;€ Ozkan et al, 2021;Whitney, 2002;Whitney & Cavanagh, 2000). Thus, in Movie 1, a vertical bar flashes repetitively, always in the same position.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Flashed Müller-Lyer and Poggendorff Virtual Illusions

Anstis

Cavanagh

2021

i-Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A moving frame can dramatically displace the perceived location of stimuli flashed before and after the motion. Here, we use a moving frame to rearrange flashed elements into the form of classic illusions. Without the moving frame, the initial arrangement of the flashed elements has no illusory effect. The question is whether the frame-induced displacement of position precedes or follows the processes underlying the illusions. This illusory offset of flashed chevrons does generate a Müller-Lyer illusion and the illusory offset of two line segments does create a Poggendorff illusion. We conclude that the site where the frame-induced position shift emerges must precede the site at which the Müller-Lyer and Poggendorf illusions arise.

show abstract

Paradoxical stabilization of relative position in moving frames

Cited by 3 publications

References 37 publications

Exploring the Frame Effect

Exploring the Frame Effect

The combination of target motion and dynamic changes in context greatly enhance visual size illusions

Flashed Müller-Lyer and Poggendorff Virtual Illusions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About