The cyclopean ternus display and the perception of element versus group movement

Patterson, Robert; Hart, P.G.; Nowak, Diane

doi:10.1016/0042-6989(91)90166-3

Cited by 19 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results support this prediction. However, it should be noted that although this dichotomy can explain the specific effect of attention on EM vs. GM responses, the validity of this theory has been called into question by other lines of research (Cavanagh, 1991; Cavanagh & Mather, 1989; Dodd et al, 2005; Odic & Pratt, 2008; Patterson et al, 1991; Scott-Samuel & Hess, 2001). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention modulates spatio-temporal grouping

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamic stimuli are ubiquitous in natural viewing conditions implying that grouping operations need to operate, not only in space, but also jointly in space and time. Moreover, in natural viewing, attention plays an important role in controlling how resources are allocated. We investigated how attention interacts with spatiotemporal perceptual grouping by using a bistable stimulus, called the Ternus-Pikler display. Ternus-Pikler displays can give rise to two different motion percepts, called Element Motion (EM) and Group Motion (GM), the former dominating at short Inter-Stimulus Intervals (ISIs) and the latter at long ISIs. Our results indicate that GM grouping requires more attentional resources than EM grouping. Different theoretical accounts of perceptual grouping and attention are discussed and evaluated in the light of the current results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention modulates spatio-temporal grouping

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cavanagh (1991) responded to Petersik's critique by addressing the percepts associated with the Ternus display. He pointed to the existence of a`cyclopean Ternus display' (Patterson et al 1991) as evidence that the short-range/long-range distinction was not valid. Patterson et al used stereoscopic random-dot displays to recreate a Ternus display in which the elements were not defined by luminance.…”

Section: Two Newer Motion Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Explanations of a Perceptual Phenomenon: A Case History Using the Ternus Effect

Petersik

Rice

2006

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ternus effect involves a multi-element stimulus that can lead to either of two different percepts of apparent movement depending upon a variety of stimulus conditions. Since Ternus's 1926 discussion of this phenomenon, many researchers have attempted to explain it. We examine the history of explanations of the Ternus effect and show that they have evolved to contemporary theoretical positions that are very similar to Ternus's own ideas. Additionally, we describe a new experiment showing that theoretical positions that emphasize element grouping and element identity within groups can predict the effects of certain stimulus manipulations on the Ternus effect.

show abstract

“…On the basis of previous literature regarding non-luminance-defined Ternus displays (eg Patterson et al, 1991;Petersik et al, 1978), if contrast summation were not a critical factor in determining proportions of group and end-to-end movement across ISIs and SDs, the flicker-defined Ternus displays should respond to changes in temporal variation and local contrast in ways similar to those seen in luminance-defined Ternus displays. This would then be inconsistent with Odic and Pratt's (2008) assertion that the type of percept seen in the Ternus display is due to the elements' TSC.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Although the configuration of the random dots proved to have a stronger influence on the percept than ISI or SD, both percepts were seen without the use of luminance-defined elements. Patterson, Hart, and Nowak (1991) and Petersik (1995) used displays consisting of randomdot stereograms in which the elements were defined using binocular disparity. Participants in these studies also perceived group and end-to-end movement dependent largely upon ISI.…”

Section: Non-luminance-defined Ternus Displaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flicker-Defined Forms in the Ternus Display

Silva

Petersik

2015

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Odic and Pratt (2008, Perception, 37, 1790-1804) proposed that the type of movement seen in the bistable Ternus display depends on the elements' temporal summation of contrast relative to the background. To test this theory, participants viewed a flicker-defined Ternus display where the elements had no temporal summation of contrast. Participants also viewed a luminance-defined control condition. Five interstimulus intervals (ISIs) (0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 ms) and two stimulus durations (SDs) (200 and 400 ms) were used in each condition. If temporal summation of contrast does not influence perceived group and end-to-end movement in flicker-defined forms, it was expected that the frequency of their reports would be equal to those in the luminance- defined control condition at the same ISIs and SDs. As predicted, the main effect of condition was not significant and participants reported both percepts at expected rates in both conditions, contrary to the predictions of Odic and Pratt (2008).

show abstract

The cyclopean ternus display and the perception of element versus group movement

Cited by 19 publications

References 22 publications

Attention modulates spatio-temporal grouping

Attention modulates spatio-temporal grouping

The Evolution of Explanations of a Perceptual Phenomenon: A Case History Using the Ternus Effect

Flicker-Defined Forms in the Ternus Display

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About