Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A novel dissociation between representational momentum and representational gravity through response modality

  • 200 Accesses

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

When people are required to indicate the vanishing location of a moving object, systematic biases forward, in the direction of motion, and downward, in the direction of gravity, are usually found. Both these displacements, called representational momentum and representational gravity, respectively, are thought to reflect anticipatory internal mechanisms aiming to overcome neural delays in the perception of motion. We challenge this view. There may not be such a single mechanism. Although both representational momentum and representational gravity follow a specific time-course, compatible with an anticipation of the object’s dynamics, they do not seem to be commensurable with each other, as they are differentially modulated by relevant variables, such as eye movements and strength of motion signals. We found separate response components, one related to overt motor localization behaviour and one limited to purely perceptual judgement. Representational momentum emerged only for the motor localization task, revealing a motor overshoot. In contrast, representational gravity was mostly evident for spatial perceptual judgements. We interpret the results in support of a partial dissociation in the mechanisms that give rise to representational momentum and representational gravity, with the former but not the latter strongly modulated by the enrolment of the motor system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Amorim, M.-A., Siegler, I. A., Baurès, R., & Oliveira, A. M. (2015). The embodied dynamics of perceptual causality: A slippery slope? Frontiers of Psychology, 6, article 483.

  2. Ashida, H. (2004). Action-specific extrapolation of target motion in human visual system. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1515–1524.

  3. Bertamini, M. (1993). Memory for position and dynamic representation. Memory & Cognition, 21, 449–457.

  4. Bosco, G., Carrozzo, M., & Lacquaniti, F. (2008). Contributions of the human temporoparietal junction and MT/V5+ to the timing of interception revealed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 12071–12084.

  5. Bosco, G., Monache, D., S., & Lacquaniti, F. (2012). Catching what we can’t see: Manual interception of occluded fly-ball trajectories. PLos One, 7, e49381.

  6. De Sá Teixeira, N. (2014). Fourier decomposition of spatial localization errors reveals an idiotropic dominance of an internal model of gravity. Vision Research, 105, 177–188.

  7. De Sá Teixeira, N. A. (2016). The visual representations of motion and of gravity are functionally independent: Evidence of a differential effect of smooth pursuit eye movements. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 2491–2504.

  8. De Sá Teixeira, N. A., & Hecht, H. (2014). The dynamic representation of gravity is suspended when the idiotropic vector is misaligned with gravity. Journal of Vestibular Research, 24, 267–279.

  9. De Sá Teixeira, N. A., Hecht, H., Artiles, A. D., Seyedmadani, K., Sherwood, D. P., & Young, L. R. (2016). Vestibular stimulation interferes with the dynamics of an internal representation of gravity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 2290–2305.

  10. De Sá Teixeira, N. A., Hecht, H., & Oliveira, A. M. (2013). The representational dynamics of remembered projectile locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1690–1699.

  11. De Sá Teixeira, N. A., & Oliveira, A. M. (2013). Explorando a trajetória espácio-temporal da representação dinâmica de projéteis. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 26, 721–729.

  12. Delle Monache, S., Lacquaniti, F., & Bosco, G. (2014). Eye movements and manual interception of ballistic trajectories: Effects of law of motion perturbations and occlusions. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 359–374.

  13. Duarte, M. (2015). Comments on “Ellipse area calculations and their applicability in posturography” (Schubert and Kirchner, vol. 39, pages 518–522, 2014). Gait Posture, 41, 44–45.

  14. Freyd, J. J. (1983). The mental representation of movement when static stimuli are viewed. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 575–581.

  15. Freyd, J. J. (1987). Dynamic mental representations. Psychological Review, 94, 427–438.

  16. Freyd, J. J., & Finke, R. A. (1984). Representational momentum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 126–132.

  17. Freyd, J. J., & Johnson, J. Q. (1987). Probing the time course of representational momentum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 259–269.

  18. Freyd, J. J., Pantzer, T. M., & Cheng, J. L. (1988). Representing statics as forces in equilibrium. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 395–407.

  19. Hayes, A. E., & Freyd, J. J. (2002). Representational momentum when attention is divided. Visual Cognition, 9, 8–27.

  20. Hecht, H., & Bertamini, M. (2000). Understanding projectile acceleration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 730–746.

  21. Hubbard, T. L. (1990). Cognitive representation of linear motion: Possible direction and gravity effects in judged displacement. Memory & Cognition, 18, 299–309.

  22. Hubbard, T. L. (1997). Target size and displacement along the axis of implied gravitational attraction: Effects of implied weight and evidence of representational gravity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1484–1493.

  23. Hubbard, T. L. (2005). Representational momentum and related displacements in spatial memory: A review of the findings. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 822–851.

  24. Hubbard, T. L. (2010). Approaches to representational momentum: Theories and models. In R. Nijhawan & B. Khurana (Eds.), Space and time in perception and action (pp. 338–365). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  25. Hubbard, T. L. (2014). Forms of momentum across space: Representational, operational, and attentional. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1371–1403.

  26. Hubbard, T. L. (2015). The varieties of momentum-like experience. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 1081–1119.

  27. Hubbard, T. L., & Bharucha, J. J. (1988). Judged displacement in apparent vertical and horizontal motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 211–221.

  28. Kerzel, D. (2000). Eye movements and visible persistence explain the mislocalization of the final position of a moving target. Vision Research, 40, 3703–3715.

  29. Kerzel, D. (2002). The locus of “memory displacement” is at least partially perceptual: Effects of velocity, expectation, friction, memory averaging, and weight. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 680–692.

  30. Kerzel, D. (2003a). Mental extrapolation of target position is strongest with weak motion signals and motor responses. Vision Research, 43, 2623–2635.

  31. Kerzel, D. (2003b). Attention maintains mental extrapolation of target position: Irrelevant distractors eliminate forward displacement after implied motion. Cognition, 88, 109–131.

  32. Kerzel, D. (2003c). Centripetal force draws the eyes, not memory of the target, toward the center. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 458–466.

  33. Kerzel, D. (2004). Attentional load modulates mislocalization of moving stimuli, but does not eliminate the error. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 848–853.

  34. Kerzel, D., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2003). Neuronal processing delays are compensated in the sensorimotor branch of the visual system. Current Biology, 13, 1975–1978.

  35. Kerzel, D., Jordan, J. S., & Müsseler, J. (2001). The role of perception in the mislocalization of the final position of a moving target. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 829–840.

  36. La Scaleia, B., Lacquaniti, F., & Zago, M. (2014). Neural extrapolation of motion for a ball rolling down an inclined plane. PloS One, 9, e99837.

  37. La Scaleia, B., Zago, M., & Lacquaniti, F. (2015). Hand interception of occluded motion in humans: A test of model-based vs. on-line control. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114, 1577–1592.

  38. Lacquaniti, F., Bosco, G., Gravano, S., Indovina, I., La Scaleia, B., Maffei, V., & Zago, M. (2014). Multisensory integration and internal models for sensing gravity effects in primates. BioMed Research International, 615854.

  39. Lacquaniti, F., Bosco, G., Indovina, I., La Scaleia, B., Maffei, V., Moscatelli, A., & Zago, M. (2013). Visual gravitational motion and the vestibular system in humans. Frontiers of Integrative Neuroscience, 7, Article 101.

  40. McIntyre, J., Zago, M., Berthoz, A., & Lacquaniti, F. (2001). Does the brain model Newton’s laws? Nature Neuroscience, 4, 693–694.

  41. Mitrani, L., & Dimitrov, G. (1978). Pursuit eye movements of a disappearing moving target. Vision Research, 18, 537–539.

  42. Moscatelli, A., & Lacquaniti, F. (2011). The weight of time: gravitational force enhances discrimination of visual motion duration. Journal of Vision, 11(4), 1–17.

  43. Müsseler, J., Stork, S., & Kerzel, D. (2002). Comparing mislocalizations with moving stimuli: The Fröhlich effect, the flash-lag, and representational momentum. Visual Cognition, 9, 120–138.

  44. Nagai, M., Kazai, K., & Yagi, A. (2002). Larger forward memory displacement in the direction of gravity. Visual Cognition, 9, 28–40.

  45. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—psychophysics software in python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13.

  46. Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10.

  47. Reed, C. L., & Vinson, N. G. (1996). Conceptual effects on representational momentum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 839–850.

  48. Séac’h, A., Senot, P., & McIntyre, J. (2010). Egocentric and allocentric frames for catching a falling object. Experimental Brain Research, 201, 653–662.

  49. Senot, P., Baillet, S., Renault, B., & Berthoz, A. (2008). Cortical dynamics of anticipatory mechanisms in interception: A neuromagnetic study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1827–1838.

  50. Senot, P., Zago, M., Lacquaniti, F., & McIntyre, J. (2005). Anticipanting the effects of gravity when intercepting moving objects: Differentiating up and down based on nonvisual cues. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94, 4471–4480.

  51. Senot, P., Zago, M., Séac’h, A., Zaoui, M., Berthoz, A., Lacquantiti, F., & McIntyre, J. (2012). When up is down in 0 g; How gravity sensing affects the timing of interceptive actions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(6), 1969–1973.

  52. Zago, M., Bosco, G., Maffei, V., Iosa, M., Ivanenko, Y. P., & Lacquaniti, F. (2004). Internal models of target motion: expected dynamics overrides measured kinematics in timing manual interceptions. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91(4), 1620–1634.

  53. Zago, M., McIntyre, J., Senot, P., & Lacquaniti, F. (2008). Internal models and prediction of visual gravitational motion. Vision Research, 48, 1532–1538.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Nuno Alexandre De Sá Teixeira.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by the Italian Space Agency (Grant I/006/06/0) and the Italian University Ministry (PRIN Grant 2015HFWRYY_002). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were approved by the local ethics committee of the Santa Lucia Foundation, and the experimental protocol was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Sá Teixeira, N.A., Kerzel, D., Hecht, H. et al. A novel dissociation between representational momentum and representational gravity through response modality. Psychological Research 83, 1223–1236 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0949-4

Download citation