Advertisement

The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 397–409 | Cite as

Vector-Determined Direction of Apparent Motion in Multipath-Multistimulus Arrays

  • Alan M. Hartman
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

This paper reports the results of two experiments designed to compare vector theory and Korte’s third law accounts of perception of direction of motion in multipath stimulus arrays. The results indicate that durations of interstimulus interval (ISI) do not influence perception of direction of motion and consequently Korte’s third law does not apply. However, path selection phenomena were observed and were best described by vector theory; motion in multipath stimulus arrays followed the resultant of the vectors of the array.

As in previous studies of path selection in multipath stimulus arrays, reference path arrays were presented in order to form a basis for judging shifts in direction of motion due to spatial-temporal factors. The results of the present study indicate that this strategy is flawed because the factors that govern path selection in the ambiguous multipath array also influence perception of direction of motion in the “reference” path arrays.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BURT, P., & SPERLING, G. (1981). Time, distance, and feature trade-offs in visual apparent motion. Psychological Review, 88, 171–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. CORBIN, H. H. (1942). The perception of grouping and apparent movement in visual depth. Archives of Psychology, 73, 1–50.Google Scholar
  3. HOCHBERG, J., & FALLON, P. (1976). Perceptual analysis of moving patterns. Science, 191, 1081–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. JOHANSSON, G. (1950). Configurations in event perception. Uppsala, Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksells.Google Scholar
  5. JOHANNSON, G. (1985). Vector analysis and process combinations in motion perception: A reply to Wallach, Becklen, and Nitzberg (1985). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 367–371.Google Scholar
  6. KOFFKA, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
  7. KOLERS, P. A. (1972). Aspects of motion perception. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  8. KOLERS, P. A., & POMERANTZ, J. R. (1971). Figurai change in apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 94–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. KORTE, A. (1915). Kinematoskopishe Untersuchungen (Cinematoscopic investigations). Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 72, 193–296.Google Scholar
  10. WALLACH, H., BECKLEN, R., & NITZBERG, D. (1985). Vector analysis and process combination in motion perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 93–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. WERTHEIMER, M. (1912). Experimental studies on the seeing of motion. Translation in Classics in psychology, Thome Shipley (Ed.), 1961. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan M. Hartman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIdaho State UniversityPocatelloUSA

Personalised recommendations