The role of eye movements in the perception of visually induced motion

Brosgole, Leonard; Cristal, Robert M.; Carpenter, Otis

doi:10.3758/bf03212722

Cited by 27 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This possibility, although consistent with subjects' claims that they are ocularly tracking the IM target (e.g., Duncker, 1929;Mack, Fendrich, & Wong, 1982), may be rejected because several studies have reported that fixation of an IM target is accurate and, thus, follows its physical, rather than its perceptual, path (Bassili & Farber, 1977;Brosgole, Cristal, & Carpenter, 1968;Mack et al, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 66%

Studies of open-loop pointing in the presence of induced motion

Post

Welch

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 66%

Studies of open-loop pointing in the presence of induced motion

Post

Welch

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, it has been asserted (Brosgole, 1966;Brosgole, Cristal, & Carpenter, 1968) that the perceived straight-ahead tends to be at the center of the frame despite the displacement of the frame (Roelofs, 1935). As a result of this tendency, the small object apparently displaced to the ri gh t or left of the perceived straight-ahead seems to move back and forth.…”

Section: Object -Re Lative Flypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of perceived distance on induced movement

Gogel

Koslow

1971

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The magnitude of induced movement was measured as a function of the perceived depth between the test object and the plane of the induction object, with this perceived depth produced by stereoscopic cues. Three experiments were conducted. In each experiment, the induction object (a frame of constant physical size) was positioned at one of three distances with the test object (a point of light) placed successively at each of the three distances. Predictions of the magnitude of induction as a function of the depth separation of the test and induction object were made from the subject-relative and object-relative hypotheses of induced motion. It was expected, however, that neither of these hypotheses would predict the results independently of a factor described in the adjacency principle. This principle states that the effectiveness of whatever cues or processes determine the induced movement will decrease with increased depth between the test and induction object. The data indicate that the adjacency principle must be considered in explaining the results. The subject-relative rather than object-relative hypothesis as modified by the adjacency principle was most successful in predicting the results. Control conditions in which the frame was stationary and the point of light was physically moving were also used. Despite the fact that the relative displacement of the objects on the eye in the experimental and control conditions were the same, the results indicate that 0 could distinguish between these two kinds of conditions. Although the apparent movement was greater in the control conditions than in the experimental conditions, the reverse is true if the total perceived movement of the test and induction object are considered together.

show abstract

“…:.ýationary center dot, when the frame moved 10 deg. These values suggest that Duncker's motion induction was stronger than that by Brosgole, et al (1968), Unfortunately, the two displays differ in many ways so that is is impossible to identify a single cause.…”

Section: Induced Motionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The linear motion of the outer annulus between the border and the disk was about 18 deg/sec; the motion of the inner disk needed to cancel the •induced motion was about 12 deg/sec'. Brosgole, et al (1968) …”

Section: Induced Motionmentioning

confidence: 99%