A comparison of colour,shape, and flash induced illusory line motion

When a bar suddenly appears between two boxes, the bar will appear to shoot away from the box that matches it in colour or in shape—a phenomenon referred to as attribute priming of illusory line motion (ILM; _colourILM and _shapeILM, respectively). If the two boxes are identical, ILM will still occur away from a box if it changes luminance shortly before the presentation of the bar (_flashILM). This flash condition has been suggested to produce the illusory motion due to the formation of an attentional gradient surrounding the flashed location. However, _colourILM and _shapeILM cannot be explained by an attentional gradient as there is no way for attention to select the matching box prior to the presentation of the bar. These findings challenge the attentional gradient explanation for ILM, but only if it is assumed that ILM arises for the same underlying reason. Two experiments are presented that address the question of whether or not _flashILM is the same as _colourILM or _shapeILM. The results suggest that while _colourILM and _shapeILM reflect a common illusion, _flashILM arises for a different reason. Therefore, the attentional gradient explanation for _flashILM is not refuted by the occurrence of _colourILM or _shapeILM, which may reflect transformational apparent motion (TAM).     

Flash-induced forward and reverse illusory line motion in offset bars

Illusory line motion (ILM) refers to perception of motion in a bar that onsets or offsets all at once. When the bar onsets or offsets between two boxes after one of the boxes flashes, the bar appears to shoot out of the flashed box (_flashILM). If the bar offsets during the flash, it appears to contract into the flashed box (reverse ILM; rILM). Onset bars do not show rILM. Moreover, rILM and _flashILM are not correlated, indicating they are two different illusions. To date, rILM has only been studied using a 50-ms flash where the bar offsets 16.7 ms after flash onset. It is not clear if rILM is due to the 16.7-ms flash-bar-removal stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) or due to the flash offsetting after the bar. The current studies explore these parameters to better understand the conditions that lead to rILM. The results suggest that _flashILM is sensitive to the temporal interval between flash onset and bar offset, while rILM appears to arise when the flash offsets after the bar has been removed regardless of the temporal interval between flash onset and bar removal. These results are consistent with _flashILM reflecting visual exogenous attention while rILM may reflect the low-level spreading of subthreshold activation radiating from the flashed box. The findings are incorporated into the recent work that suggests that the literature concerning ILM is possibly conflating a number of different illusions of line motion, including polarized gamma motion (PGM), transformational apparent motion (TAM), and exogenous attention induced motion (_flashILM).     

Displacement of location in illusory line motion

Six experiments examined displacement in memory for the location of the line in illusory line motion (ILM; appearance or disappearance of a stationary cue is followed by appearance of a stationary line that is presented all at once, but the stationary line is perceived to “unfold” or “be drawn” from the end closest to the cue to the end most distant from the cue). If ILM was induced by having a single cue appear, then memory for the location of the line was displaced toward the cue, and displacement was larger if the line was closer to the cue. If ILM was induced by having one of two previously visible cues vanish, then memory for the location of the line was displaced away from the cue that vanished. In general, the magnitude of displacement increased and then decreased as retention interval increased from 50 to 250 ms and from 250 to 450 ms, respectively. Displacement of the line (a) is consistent with a combination of a spatial averaging of the locations of the cue and the line with a relatively weaker dynamic in the direction of illusory motion, (b) might be implemented in a spreading activation network similar to networks previously suggested to implement displacement resulting from implied or apparent motion, and (c) provides constraints and challenges for theories of ILM.     

Attentional capture by motion onsets is spatially imprecise

Using straight translatory motion of a visual peripheral cue in the frontoparallel plane, and probing target discrimination at different positions along the cue's motion trajectory, we found that target orientation discrimination was slower for targets presented at or near the position of motion onset (4.2° off centre), relative to the onset of a static cue (Experiment 1), and relative to targets presented further along the motion trajectory (Experiments 1 and 2). Target discrimination was equally fast and accurate in the moving cue conditions relative to static cue conditions at positions further along the cue's motion trajectory (Experiment 1). Moreover, target orientation discrimination was not slowed at the same position, once this position was no longer the motion onset position (Experiment 3), and performance in a target colour-discrimination task was not slowed even at motion onset (Experiment 4). Finally, we found that the onset location of the motion cue was perceived as being shifted in the direction of the cue's motion (Experiment 5). These results indicate that attention cannot be as quickly or precisely shifted to the onset of a motion stimulus as to other positions on a stimulus’ motion trajectory.     

Illusory line motion is not caused by object-differentiating mechanisms or endogenous attention

Christie and Klein [2005. Does attention cause illusory line motion? Perception & Psychophysics, 67(6), 1032–1043] published line motion ratings consistent with illusory line motion (ILM) after peripheral endogenous cues but not central arrow cues. When attention was directed endogenously on the basis of the shape of one of two peripherally presented objects, participants reported small, but significant motion away from the attended object, and this was attributed to participant bias, or to a peripherally directed object-based attention system endogenously recruited to differentiate the peripheral shapes. By using a unique cueing method with identical peripheral markers, but still allowing them to act as cues, the findings of Christie and Klein Experiment 4 were replicated. This reduces the likelihood that object discrimination or object attention mechanisms are responsible for the reported ILM-like effects.     

Invalid cues impair auditory motion sensitivity

Compelling lateral motion can be experienced when intensity differences between the two cars change over time. Whether our sensitivity to this dynamic interaural stimulation could be influenced by directional cues was the focus of the present study. On each trial, amplitude-modulated pure tones were presented either diotically (no-motion condition) or dichotically (motion condition), and participants indicated whether lateral motion was present or absent. Randomly across trials, the stimuli were preceded by a valid directional cue, an invalid directional cue, or no cue, while the motion to be detected was identical across these cue conditions. The data indicate that motion sensitivity was comparable in the valid-cue and no-cue conditions. Relative to each of those conditions, however, motion sensitivity was significantly lower in the invalid-cue condition, and motion was reported significantly less often. The results provide evidence that our sensitivity to dynamic interaural intensity differences can be significantly affected by a non-sensory factor, namely cue validity.     

Visual cues of motion that trigger animacy perception at birth: the case of self‐propulsion

Self‐propelled motion is a powerful cue that conveys information that an object is animate. In this case, animate refers to an entity's capacity to initiate motion without an applied external force. Sensitivity to this motion cue is present in infants that are a few months old, but whether this sensitivity is experience‐dependent or is already present at birth is unknown. Here, we tested newborns to examine whether predispositions to process self‐produced motion cues underlying animacy perception were present soon after birth. We systematically manipulated the onset of motion by self‐propulsion (Experiment 1) and the change in trajectory direction in the presence or absence of direct contact with an external object (Experiments 2 and 3) to investigate how these motion cues determine preference in newborns. Overall, data demonstrated that, at least at birth, the self‐propelled onset of motion is a crucial visual cue that allowed newborns to differentiate between self‐ and non‐self‐propelled objects (Experiment 1) because when this cue was removed, newborns did not manifest any visual preference (Experiment 2), even if they were able to discriminate between the stimuli (Experiment 3). To our knowledge, this is the first study aimed at identifying sensitivity in human newborns to the most basic and rudimentary motion cues that reliably trigger perceptions of animacy in adults. Our findings are compatible with the hypothesis of the existence of inborn predispositions to visual cues of motion that trigger animacy perception in adults.     

Auditory stimulation affects apparent motion1

Abstract: In two experiments, we investigated how the number of auditory stimuli affected the apparent motion induced by visual stimuli. The multiple visual stimuli that induced the apparent motion on the front parallel plane, or in the depth dimension in terms of the binocular disparity cue, were accompanied by multiple auditory stimuli. Observers reported the number of visual stimuli (Experiments 1 and 2) and the displacement of the apparent motion that was defined by the distance between the first and last visual stimuli (Experiment 2). When the number of auditory stimuli was more/less than that of the visual stimuli, observers tended to perceive more/less visual stimuli and a larger/smaller displacement than when the numbers of the auditory and visual stimuli were the same, regardless of the dimension of motion. These results suggest that auditory stimulation may modify the visual processing of motion by modulating the spatiotemporal resolution and extent of the displacement.     

Unimodal and crossmodal effects of endogenous attention to visual and auditory motion

Three experiments were conducted examining unimodal and crossmodal effects of attention to motion. Horizontally moving sounds and dot patterns were presented and participants’ task was to discriminate their motion speed or whether they were presented with a brief gap. In Experiments 1 and 2, stimuli of one modality and of one direction were presented with a higher probability ( p = .7) than other stimuli. Sounds and dot patterns moving in the expected direction were discriminated faster than stimuli moving in the unexpected direction. In Experiment 3, participants had to respond only to stimuli moving in one direction within the primary modality, but to all stimuli regardless of their direction within the rarer secondary modality. Stimuli of the secondary modality moving in the attended direction were discriminated faster than were oppositely moving stimuli. Results suggest that attending to the direction of motion affects perception within vision and audition, but also across modalities.     

Transient attention degrades perceived apparent motion

Transient spatial attention refers to the automatic selection of a location that is driven by the stimulus rather than a voluntary decision. Apparent motion is an illusory motion created by stationary stimuli that are presented successively at different locations. In this study we explored the effects of transient attention on apparent motion. The motion target presentation was preceded by either valid attentional cues that attract attention to the target location in advance (experiments 1-4), neutral cues that do not indicate a location (experiments 1, 3, and 4), or invalid cues that direct attention to a non-target location (experiment 2). Valid attentional cues usually improve performance in various tasks. Here, however, an attentional impairment was found. Observers' ability to discriminate the direction of motion diminished at the cued location. Analogous results were obtained regardless of cue type: singleton cue (experiment 1), central non-informative cue (experiment 2), or abrupt onset cue (experiment 3). Experiment 4 further demonstrated that reversed apparent motion is less likely with attention. This seemingly counterintuitive attentional degradation of perceived apparent motion is consistent with several recent findings, and together they suggest that transient attention facilitates spatial segregation and temporal integration but impairs spatial integration and temporal segregation.     

An effective attentional set for a specific colour does not prevent capture by infrequently presented motion distractors

An organism's survival depends on the ability to rapidly orient attention to unanticipated events in the world. Yet, the conditions needed to elicit such involuntary capture remain in doubt. Especially puzzling are spatial cueing experiments, which have consistently shown that involuntary shifts of attention to highly salient distractors are not determined by stimulus properties, but instead are contingent on attentional control settings induced by task demands. Do we always need to be set for an event to be captured by it, or is there a class of events that draw attention involuntarily even when unconnected to task goals? Recent results suggest that a task-irrelevant event will capture attention on first presentation, suggesting that salient stimuli that violate contextual expectations might automatically capture attention. Here, we investigated the role of contextual expectation by examining whether an irrelevant motion cue that was presented only rarely (～3–6% of trials) would capture attention when observers had an active set for a specific target colour. The motion cue had no effect when presented frequently, but when rare produced a pattern of interference consistent with attentional capture. The critical dependence on the frequency with which the irrelevant motion singleton was presented is consistent with early theories of involuntary orienting to novel stimuli. We suggest that attention will be captured by salient stimuli that violate expectations, whereas top-down goals appear to modulate capture by stimuli that broadly conform to contextual expectations.     

Perception of Mooney faces by young infants: the role of local feature visibility, contrast polarity, and motion

We examined the ability of young infants (3- and 4-month-olds) to detect faces in the two-tone images often referred to as Mooney faces. In Experiment 1, this performance was examined in conditions of high and low visibility of local features and with either the presence or absence of the outer head contour. We found that regardless of the presence of the outer head contour, infants preferred upright over inverted two-tone face images only when local features were highly visible (Experiment 1a). We showed that this upright preference disappeared when the contrast polarity of two-tone images was reversed (Experiment 1b), reflecting operation of face-specific mechanisms. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether motion affects infants' perception of faces in Mooney faces. We found that when the faces appeared to be rigidly moving, infants did show an upright preference in conditions of low visibility of local features (Experiment 2a). Again the preference disappeared when the contrast polarity of the image was reversed (Experiment 2b). Together, these results suggest that young infants have the ability to integrate fragmented image features to perceive faces from two-tone face images, especially if they are moving. This suggests that an interaction between motion and form rather than a purely motion-based process (e.g., structure from motion) facilitates infants' perception of faces in ambiguous two-tone images.     

Endogenous attention and illusory line motion reexamined

P. Downing and A. Treisman's (1997) failure to replicate an effect of endogenous attention on the direction of illusory line motion (ILM) was reexamined. Four experiments with slightly modified stimulus presentation methods based on gradient theories of ILM found that endogenous attention directed to 1 of 2 similar priming objects is capable of influencing experienced motion direction within a subsequently presented line. The endogenous effect on ILM was consistent with a concomitant response-time discrimination task, was robust across naive and informed participants, occurred whether eye fixation was monitored or not, and occurred under conditions where multiple motion response categories were available to participants. The endogenous effect disappeared when participants moved their eyes to the attended item, when there was no motivation to endogenously attend, and when the presentation methods of P. Downing and A. Treisman (1997) were used.     

Lateralization of lexical codes in auditory word recognition

Three experiments examined the lateralization of lexical codes in auditory word recognition. In Experiment 1 a word rhyming with a binaurally presented cue word was detected faster when the cue and target were spelled similarly than when they were spelled differently. This orthography effect was larger when the target was presented to the right ear than when it was presented to the left ear. Experiment 2 replicated the interaction between ear of presentation and orthography effect when the cue and target were spoken in different voices. In Experiment 3, subjects made lexical decisions to pairs of stimuli presented to the left or the right ear. Lexical decision times and the amount of facilitation which obtained when the target stimuli were semantically related words did not differ as a function of ear of presentation. The results suggest that the semantic, phonological, and orthographic codes for a word are represented in each hemisphere; however, orthographic and phonological representations are integrated only in the left hemisphere.     

'Change of Mind' within and between nonconscious (masked) and conscious (unmasked) visual processing

We examined the updating of decisions made during visuo-motor processing when two sequentially presented stimuli, Prime1 and Prime2, primed discriminative responses to a following probe. In Experiment 1, the visibility of the two primes was suppressed or left intact by varying the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of the stimuli immediately following them. In Experiment 2, the visibility of Prime2 was suppressed or left intact by varying its spatial separation from the following probe. We found (1) that Prime2 dominated the effects of Prime1; (2) that Prime2's updating was stronger when the Prime2-probe SOA was 200 as compared to 53 ms; and (3) that Prime2's updating was weaker when the Prime2-probe spatial separation was 58 as compared to 0 minarc. We conclude that these effects are due to an interaction of spatial attention and the state (conscious vs. nonconscious) of processing of Prime2.     

Transient attention does increase perceived contrast of suprathreshold stimuli: a reply to Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008)

Carrasco, Ling, and Read (2004) showed that transient attention increases perceived contrast. However, Prinzmetal, Long, and Leonhardt (2008) suggest that for targets of low visibility, observers may bias their response toward the cued location, and they propose a cue-bias explanation for our previous results. Our response is threefold. First, we outline several key methodological differences between the studies that could account for the different results. We conclude that the cue-bias hypothesis is a plausible explanation for Prinzmetal et al.'s (2008) results, given the characteristics of their stimuli, but not for the studies by Carrasco and colleagues, in which the stimuli were suprathreshold (Carrasco, Ling, & Read, 2004; Fuller, Rodriguez, & Carrasco, 2008; Ling & Carrasco, 2007). Second, we conduct a study to show that the stimuli used in our previous studies are not near-threshold, but suprathreshold (Experiment 1, Phase 1). Furthermore, we found an increase in apparent contrast for a high-contrast stimulus when it was precued, but not when it was postcued, providing more evidence against a cue-bias hypothesis (Experiment 1, Phase 2). We also show that the visibility of the stimuli in Prinzmetal et al. (2008) was much lower than that of Carrasco, Ling, and Read, rendering their stimuli susceptible to their cue-bias explanation (Experiment 2). Third, we present a comprehensive summary of all the control conditions used in different labs that have ruled out a cue bias explanation of the appearance studies. We conclude that a cue-bias explanation may operate with near-threshold and low-visibility stimuli, as was the case in Prinzmetal et al. (2008), but that such an explanation has no bearing on studies with suprathreshold stimuli. Consistent with our previous studies, the present data support the claim that attention does alter the contrast appearance of suprathreshold stimuli.     

Cues facilitate detection of motion in dynamic random-dot patterns

In 1981 Ball and Sekuler showed that a briefly flashed line which primed the subject to the direction of target motion improved the detection of a target. Our aim was to study whether a pointing arrow and random-dot patterns that move in one of four possible directions can prime detection of motion for higher-contrast stimuli. When the motion of a target was primed and the cue validity was 100%, the target's position was more easily detected. Improvement was significant when the direction indicated by the cue and a target's direction were either the same or opposite relative to each other. When the subjects (n = 5 each experiment) did not know the direction of the target before the presentation of the stimulus field, no improvement was found. A discussion of attention to the cue is presented.     

Does attention cause illusory line motion?

Illusory line motion (ILM) has been shown to occur when a line is presented with one end next to a previously stimulated location. The line appears to be drawn away from the site of stimulation. It has been suggested that this is because of the allocation of attention to the stimulated site. Using an endogenous attentional manipulation (a central arrow cue) with no differences in the display between the two ends of the line at the time of line presentation or immediately prior, no ILM was detected, though there was a small effect in the opposite direction. Those who have found endogenously induced ILM have used an endogenous cue based on a property of a location marker that indicated the cued location. Changing the method of cuing to one based on a property of a peripheral marker instead of a central arrow produced a small but significant report of ILM. The small magnitude of the effect, participant self-reports, and the absence of the effect in the purely endogenous condition, suggest that this was merely a bias. ILM is not generated by endogenous attention shifts.     

Visual motion and attentional capture

Previous work has shown that abrupt visual onsets capture attention. This occurs even with stimuli that are equiluminant with the background, which suggests that the appearance of a new perceptual object, not merely a change in luminance, captures attention. Three experiments are reported in which this work was extended by investigating the possible role of visual motion in attentional capture. Experiment 1 revealed that motion can efficiently guide attention when it is perfectly informative about the location of a visual search target, but that it does not draw attention when it does not predict the target’s position. This result was obtained with several forms of motion, including oscillation, looming, and nearby moving contours. To account for these and other results, we tested anew-object account of attentional capture in Experiment 2 by using a global/local paradigm. When motion segregated a local letter from its perceptual group, the local letter captured attention as indexed by an effect on latency of response to the task-relevant global configuration. Experiment 3 ruled out the possibility that the motion in Experiment 2 captured attention merely by increasing the salience of the moving object. We argue instead that when motion segregates a perceptual element from a perceptual group, a new perceptual object is created, and this event captures attention. Together, the results suggest that motion as such does not capture attention but that the appearance of a new perceptual object does.     

Adaptation to auditory motion in the horizontal plane: Effect of prior exposure to motion on motion detectability

Thresholds for auditory motion detectability were measured in a darkened anechoic chamber while subjects were adapted to horizontally moving sound saurces of various-velocities. All stimuli were 500-Hz lowpass noises presented at a level of 55 dBA. The threshold measure employed was the minimum audible movement angle(MAMA)—that is, the minimum angle a horizontally moving sound must traverse to be just discriminable from a stationary sound. In an adaptive, two-interval forced-choice procedure, trials occurred every 2-5 sec (Experiment 1) or every 10–12 sec (Experiment 2). Intertrial time was “filled” with exposure to the adaptor—a stimulus that repeatedly traversed the subject’s front hemifield at ear level (distance: 1.7 m) at a constant velocity (?150°/secto + 150°/sec)during a run. Average MAMAs in the control condition, in which the adaptor was stationary (0°/sec), were 2.4° (Experiment 1) and 3.0° (Experiment 2). Three out of 4 subjects in each experiment showed significantly elevated MAMAs (by up to 60%), with some adaptors relative to the control condition. However, there were large intersubject differences in the shape of the MAMA versus adaptor velocity functions. This loss of sensitivity to motion that most subjects show after exposure to moving signals is probably one component underlying the auditory motion aftereffect (Grantham, 1989), in which judgmentsof the direction-afmoving sounds are biased in the direction opposite to that of a previously presented adaptor.