Search

Rapid eye movements called saccades give rise to sudden, enormous changes in optic information arriving at the eye; how the world nonetheless appears stable is known as the problem of spatial constancy. One consequence of saccades is that the directions of all visible points shift uniformly; directional of 2D constancy, the fact that we do not perceive this change, has received extensive study for over a century. The problems raised by 3D consequences of saccades, on the other hand, have been neglected. When the eye rotates in space, the 3D orientation of all stationary surfaces undergoes an equal-and-opposite rotation with respect to the eye. When presented with a an optic simulation of a saccade but with the eyes still, observers readily perceive this depth rotation of surfaces; when simultaneously performing the corresponding saccade, the 3D orientations of surfaces are perceived as stable, a phenomenon | propose calling 3D spatial constancy. In experiments presented here, observers viewed ambiguous 3D rotations immediately before, during, or after a saccade. The results show that before the eyes begin to move the brain anticipates the 3D consequences of saccades, preferring to perceive the rotation opposite to the impending eye movement. Further, the anticipation is absent when observers fixate while experiencing optically simulated saccades, and therefore must be evoked by extraretinal signals. Such anticipation could provide a mechanism for 3D spatial constancy and transsaccadic integration of depth information. depth perception | vision | saccades | spatial constancy

Although motor actions can profoundly affect the perceptual interpretation of sensory inputs, it is not known whether the combination of sensory and movement signals occurs only for sensory surfaces undergoing movement or whether it is a more general phenomenon. In the haptic modality, the independent movement of multiple sensory surfaces poses a challenge to the nervous system when combining the tactile and kinesthetic signals into a coherent percept. When exploring a stationary object, the tactile and kinesthetic signals come from the same hand. Here we probe the internal structure of haptic combination by directing the two signal streams to separate hands: one hand moves but receives no tactile stimulation, while the other hand feels the consequences of the first hand's movement but remains still. We find that both discrete and continuous tactile and kinesthetic signals are combined as if they came from the same hand. This combination proceeds by direct coupling or transfer of the kinesthetic signal from the moving to the feeling hand, rather than assuming the displacement of a mediating object. The combination of signals is due to perception rather than inference, because a small temporal offset between the signals significantly degrades performance. These results suggest that the brain simplifies the complex coordinate transformation task of remapping sensory inputs to take into account the movements of multiple body parts in haptic perception, and they show that the effects of action are not limited to moving sensors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When human observers are exposed to even slight motion signals followed by brief visual transients—stimuli containing no detectable coherent motion signals—they perceive large and salient illusory jumps. This visually striking effect, which we call "high phi," challenges well-entrenched assumptions about the perception of motion, namely the minimal-motion principle and the breakdown of coherent motion perception with steps above an upper limit called dmax. Our experiments with transients, such as texture randomization or contrast reversal, show that the magnitude of the jump depends on spatial frequency and transient duration—but not on the speed of the inducing motion signals—and the direction of the jump depends on the duration of the inducer. Jump magnitude is robust across jump directions and different types of transient. In addition, when a texture is actually displaced by a large step beyond the upper step size limit of dmax, a breakdown of coherent motion perception is expected; however, in the presence of an inducer, observers again perceive coherent displacements at or just above dmax. In summary, across a large variety of stimuli, we find that when incoherent motion noise is preceded by a small bias, instead of perceiving little or no motion—as suggested by the minimal-motion principle—observers perceive jumps whose amplitude closely follows their own dmax limits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To capture where things are and what they are doing, the visual system may extract the position and motion of each object relative to its surrounding frame of reference [K. Duncker, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 161-172 (1929) and G. Johansson, Acta Psychol (Amst.) 7, 25-79 (1950)]. Here we report a particularly powerful example where a paradoxical stabilization is produced by a moving frame. We first take a frame that moves left and right and we flash its right edge before, and its left edge after, the frame's motion. For all frame displacements tested, the two edges are perceived as stabilized, with the left edge on the left and right edge on the right, separated by the frame's width as if the frame were not moving. This stabilization is paradoxical because the motion of the frame itself remains visible, albeit much reduced. A second experiment demonstrated that unlike other motion-induced position shifts (e.g., flash lag, flash grab, flash drag, or Fröhlich), the illusory shift here is independent of speed and is set instead by the distance of the frame's travel. In this experiment, two probes are flashed inside the frame at the same physical location before and after the frame moves. Despite being physically superimposed, the probes are perceived widely separated, again as if they were seen in the frame's coordinates and the frame were stationary. This paradoxical stabilization suggests a link to visual stability across eye movements where the displacement of the entire visual scene may act as a frame to stabilize the perception of relative locations., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest.

Studies of perception usually emphasize processes that are largely universal across observers and--except for short-term fluctuations--stationary over time. Here we test the universality and stationarity assumptions with two families of ambiguous visual stimuli. Each stimulus can be perceived in two different ways, parameterized by two opposite directions from a continuous circular variable. A large-sample study showed that almost all observers have preferred directions or biases, with directions lying within 90 degrees of the bias direction nearly always perceived and opposite directions almost never perceived. The biases differ dramatically from one observer to the next, and although nearly every bias direction occurs in the population, the population distributions of the biases are nonuniform, featuring asymmetric peaks in the cardinal directions. The biases for the two families of stimuli are independent and have distinct population distributions. Following external perturbations and spontaneous fluctuations, the biases decay over tens of seconds toward their initial values. Persistent changes in the biases are found on time scales of several minutes to 1 hour. On scales of days to months, the biases undergo a variety of dynamical processes such as drifts, jumps, and oscillations. The global statistics of a majority of these long-term time series are well modeled as random walk processes. The measurable fluctuations of these hitherto unknown degrees of freedom show that the assumptions of universality and stationarity in perception may be unwarranted and that models of perception must include both directly observable variables as well as covert, persistent states.