Competition between color and luminance in motion correspondence
- 72 Downloads
The visual system needs to solve the correspondence problem (i.e., which elements belong together across space and time) to allow stable representations of objects. It has been shown that spatiotemporal and feature information can influence this correspondence process, but it is unclear how these factors interact with each other, especially when they are more or less prominent due to changes in contrast magnitude. We investigated this question using a variation of the Ternus display, an ambiguous apparent motion display, in which three elements can either be perceived as moving together (group motion) or as one element jumping across the others (element motion). In the first experiment, we biased the percept by presenting some of the elements with the same feature (isoluminant color or luminance), such that they were either compatible with group motion or with element motion (simple feature biases). To change the strength of the feature bias, we manipulated the contrast magnitude of the feature. In three more experiments we introduced competitive displays, in which some of the elements showed a color/luminance based element bias of varying contrast magnitude, while other elements showed a luminance/color based group bias of varying contrast magnitude (competing feature bias). We found that for a simple feature bias the contrast magnitude did not affect the strength of the bias. For competing feature biases, however, the contrast magnitude did influence correspondence, as the bias strength increased with contrast. The implications of our results for current motion and feature-based theories of correspondence are discussed.
KeywordsMotion: Apparent Perceptual organization Visual perception
We thank Robert Konz and Jan Christopher Werner for help with data collection. We also thank Cathleen Moore, two anonymous reviewers, and the action editor Michael Dodd for valuable comments and suggestions clarifying the manuscript. This research was supported by DFG project HE 7543/1-1.
- Hein, E., & Moore, C. M. (2012). Spatio-temporal priority revisited: The role of feature identity and similarity for object correspondence in apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 975–988.Google Scholar
- Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36, ECVP Abstract Supplement.Google Scholar
- Kolers, P. A. (1972). Aspects of motion perception. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Korte, A. (1915). Kinematoskopische Untersuchungen [Kinematoscopic examinations]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 72, 193–296.Google Scholar
- Navon, D. (1976). Irrelevance of figural identity for resolving ambiguities in apparent motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 130–138.Google Scholar
- Pikler, J. (1917). Sinnesphysiologische Untersuchungen [Sensoryphysiological examinations]. Leipzig, Germany: J. A. Barth.Google Scholar
- Reichardt, W. (1961). Autocorrelation, a principle for the evaluation of sensory information. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.), Sensory communication (pp. 303–317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Ternus, J. (1950). Experimentelle Untersuchungen über phänomenale Identität [Investigations concerning the study of the Gestalt: Experimental investigations of phenomenal identity] (W. D. Ellis, Trans. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A sourcebook of gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Humanities Press. (Reprinted from Psychologische Forschung, 7, 81–136, 1926)Google Scholar
- Ullman, S. (1979). The interpretation of visual motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Wertheimer, M. (1912). Experimentelle Studien uber das Sehen von Bewegung [Experimental studies of the perception of motion]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 61, 161–265.Google Scholar