Perception

-------------------------------------------------
Top of Form

Search Options
Bottom of Form * Home * Contact Us * Access old SpringerLink
Sign up / Log in English Academic edition
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics© The Author(s) 201210.3758/s13414-012-0397-6
The perceived onset position of a moving target: Effects of trial contexts are evoked by different attentional allocations
Jochen Müsseler1, 2 and Jens Tiggelbeck1
(1)
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
(2)
Work and Cognitive Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstr. 17-19, 52066 Aachen, Germany

Jochen Müsseler
Email: [e-mail]
URL: http://www.psych.rwth-aachen.de/ifp-zentral/front_content.php?idcat=222
Published online: 14 November 2012
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that the localization of the perceived onset position of a moving target varies with the trial context. When the moving target appeared at predictable positions to the left or right of fixation (constant context), localization judgments of the perceived onset positions were essentially displaced in motion direction (Fröhlich effect). In contrast, when the target appeared at unpredictable positions in the visual field (random context), localization judgments were at least drastically reduced. Four explanations of this influence of trial context on localization judgments were examined in three experiments. Findings ruled out an overcompensation mechanism effective in random-context conditions, a predictive mechanism effective in constant-context conditions and a detrimental mechanism originating from more trial repetitions in constant-context conditions. Instead, the results indicated that different attentional allocations are responsible for the localization differences. They also demonstrated that attentional mechanisms are at the basis of the Fröhlich effect.
Keywords
Attention Space perception Localization Position judgments Onset position Moving

References: Awh, E., & Pashler, H. (2000). Evidence for split attentional foci. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 26, 834–846.PubMedCrossRef Bestmann, S., Ruff, C Bocianski, D., Müsseler, J., & Erlhagen, W. (2008). Relative mislocalization of successively presented stimuli. Vision Research, 48, 2204–2212.PubMedCrossRef Bocianski, D., Müsseler, J., & Erlhagen, W Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.PubMedCrossRef Brouwer, A Cave, K. R., Bush, W. S., & Taylor, T. G. G. (2010). Split attention as part of a flexible attentional system for complex scenes: Comment on Jans, Peters, and De Weerd (2010). Psychological Review, 117, 685–696.PubMedCrossRef Cornelissen, F Franconeri, S. L., Alvarez, G. A., & Enns, J. T. (2007). How many locations can you select? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1003–1012.PubMedCrossRef Fröhlich, F Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.CrossRef Hubbard, T Hubbard, T. L., & Ruppel, S. E. (2011). Effects of spatial cuing on the onset repulsion effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2236–2248.CrossRef Jancke, D., & Erlhagen, W Kirschfeld, K., & Kammer, T. (1999). The Fröhlich effect: a consequence of the interaction of visual focal attention and metacontrast. Vision Research, 39(22), 3702–3709. Krauzlis, R. J., & Adler, S. A. (2001). Effects of directional expectations on motion perception and pursuit eye movements. Visual Neuroscience, 18,365–376.PubMedCrossRef Krauzlis, R Lupiàñez, J. (2010). Inhibition of return. In A. C. Nobre & J. T. Coull (Eds.), Attention and time (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Müsseler, J., & Aschersleben, G Müsseler, J., Brinkmeier, E., & Stork, S. (2004). The trial context and the perceived onset position of moving stimuli. In U. Ilg, H. Bülthoff, & H. Mallot (Eds.), Dynamic Perception (pp. 119–124). Sankt Augustin, Germany: Infix. Müsseler, J., & Kerzel, D. (2004). The trial context determines adjusted localization of stimuli: Reconciling the Fröhlich and Onset Repulsion Effects.Vision Research, 44(19), 2201–2206.PubMed Müsseler, J., Stork, S., & Kerzel, D Nijhawan, R. (2008). Visual prediction: Psychophysics and neurophysiology of compensation for time delays. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 179–239.PubMed Pelli, D Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance ((pp, Vol. X, pp. 531–556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Runeson, S. (1974). Constant velocity: Not perceived as such. Psychological Research, 37, 3–23.PubMedCrossRef Smith, A Steinman, B. A., Steinman, S. B., & Lehmkuhle, S. (1995). Visual attention mechanisms show a center-surround organization. Vision Research, 35,1859–1869.PubMedCrossRef Stork, S., Müsseler, J., & van der Heijden, A Tayama, T. (2004). The spatial and temporal conditions for perceiving velocity as constant. Perception, 33, 495–506.PubMedCrossRef Thornton, I Tsal, Y., & Bareket, T. (1999). Effects of attention on localization of stimuli in the visual field. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(2), 292–296. Tsal, Y., & Bareket, T. (2005). Localization judgments under various levels of attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 559–566.CrossRef Tsal, Y., Meiran, N., & Lamy, D van der Heijden, A. H. C., van der Geest, J. N., de Leeuw, F., Krikke, K., & Müsseler, J. (1999). Sources of position-perception error for small isolated targets. Psychological Research, 62, 20–35.PubMedCrossRef Whitney, D., & Cavanagh, P Wright, J. M., Morris, A. P., & Krekelberg, B. (2011). Weighted integration of visual position information. Journal of Vision, 11, 1–16. Yeshurun, Y., & Carrasco, M. (1999). Spatial attention improves performance in spatial resolution tasks. Vision Research, 39, 293–306.PubMedCrossRef 6,821,648 scientific documents at your fingertips © Springer, Part of Springer Science+Business MediaPrivacy Policy, Disclaimer, General Terms & Conditions Not logged in INASP - Pakistan (2000409226) University of the Punjab (3000172754) 111.68.103.25