Contribution of Visuospatial and Motion-Tracking to Invisible Motion.
People experience an object's motion even when it is occluded. We investigate the processing of invisible motion in three experiments. Observers saw a moving circle passing behind an invisible, irregular hendecagonal polygon and had to respond as quickly as possible when the target had "just reappeared" from behind the occluder. Without explicit cues allowing the end of each of the eight hidden trajectories to be predicted (length ranging between 4.7 and 5 deg), we found as expected, if visuospatial attention was involved, anticipation errors, providing that information on pre-occluder motion was available. This indicates that the observers, rather than simply responding when they saw the target, tended to anticipate its reappearance (Experiment 1). The new finding is that, with a fixation mark indicating the center of the invisible trajectory, a linear relationship between the physical and judged occlusion duration is found, but not without it (Experiment 2) or with a fixation mark varying in position from trial to trial (Experiment 3). We interpret the role of central fixation in the differences in distinguishing trajectories smaller than 0.3 deg, by suggesting that it reflects spatiotemporal computation and motion-tracking. These two mechanisms allow visual imagery to form of the point symmetrical to that of the disappearance, with respect to fixation, and then for the occluded moving target to be tracked up to this point.
Department of General Psychology, Perception, and Psychophysics, University of Padova Padova, Italy.
Luca
L
Battaglini
Department of General Psychology, Perception, and Psychophysics, University of Padova Padova, Italy.
Clara
C
Casco
invisible motion; motion extrapolation; motion-tracking; spatial cue; visuospatial attention
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Jun;24(3):901-14
9627424
Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Jun;6(2):204-23
12199208
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015 Feb;77(2):603-12
25388368
Nature. 1991 Apr 25;350(6320):699-702
2023631
Vision Res. 2000;40(26):3651-64
11116167
Percept Psychophys. 1995 Feb;57(2):231-45
7885822
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
9176952
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Jun;13(3):516-23
17048740
Vision Res. 2008 Mar;48(7):872-81
18279906
Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Sep;12(9):334-41
18684661
Science. 1992 Sep 11;257(5076):1563-5
1523411
Cogn Psychol. 1995 Feb;28(1):1-16
7895467
Neuron. 1999 Apr;22(4):751-61
10230795
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Jul;64(7):1327-43
21480079
Brain Res. 2007 Mar 2;1135(1):154-66
17198687
Vision Res. 2011 Jul 1;51(13):1431-56
21324335
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Feb;4(2):42-50
10652521
Vision Res. 2006 Aug;46(16):2593-601
16545854
Iperception. 2013 May 22;4(3):180-91
23799195
Vision Res. 2002 Nov;42(26):2811-6
12450506
Acta Psychol (Amst). 1995 Sep;89(3):239-60
7572268
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Feb;72(2):378-86
20139453
Vision Res. 1995 Oct;35(19):2697-722
7483311
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006 Mar;7(3):220-31
16495943
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Jul;74(5):1056-72
22391892
Vision Res. 2009 Jun;49(10):1129-43
19038281
Vision Res. 2009 Aug;49(17):2164-75
19527745
Vision Res. 2008 Aug;48(18):1884-93
18588909
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Jun;30(3):431-44
15161377
J Gen Psychol. 1992 Apr;119(2):105-11
1506842
Nat Neurosci. 2003 Jan;6(1):66-74
12483216
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
9176953
J Neurosci. 2005 Sep 7;25(36):8259-66
16148233
Can J Exp Psychol. 2000 Mar;54(1):1-14
10721235
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Jan;50(1):153-9
22120007
Trends Cogn Sci. 1998 Nov 1;2(11):422-4
21227268
J Vis. 2008 Aug 01;8(10):2.1-11
19146344
Perception. 1984;13(4):429-41
6527930
Psychol Res. 1992;54(3):175-81
1509025
PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26154
22022546
J Vis. 2014 Nov 14;14(13):10
25398972
Exp Brain Res. 2006 Jan;168(3):313-21
16180042
Trends Cogn Sci. 1999 Aug;3(8):301-310
10431184
Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1365-76
10788646
Neuron. 2007 Jul 19;55(2):301-12
17640530
Exp Brain Res. 1997 Oct;116(3):445-55
9372293
J Vis. 2011 Dec 12;11(14):null
22159826