Following on from 
- The idea of separate position representations (e.g. for first- and second-order motion as suggested by Pavan & Mather 2008) is really fascinating
- Nicolls,Mattingley,Berberovic,Smith,&Bradshaw(2004) review horiz/vert asymmetries we should check out for ideas
- To explain the Cai & Schlag smooth pursuit flash mislocalisation effect, Rotman, Brenner , Smeets (2005) suggest that efference copy motion signal is combined with (absent) retinal motion of flash to yield extrapolation. They present their whack-a-mole targets for variable duration and find the longer the exposure duration, the less mislocalization in the direction of the eye movement. They theorize that the reason is that the longer targets have more retinal motion opposite the pursuit, so this cancels the efference copy to eliminate the extrapolation. An alternative account is that longer exposure improves the integration with spatiotopically stationary landmarks, reducing the reliance on the retinotopic code. Since this does not help for targets moving with the eyes, would have to posit that stabilization thanks to landmarks doesn't happen with moving targets. But this seems unlikely. I would like to see 1) Mislocalization when target moves in orthogonal direction 2) Whether variability (presumably spatial in both cases, since we find spatial for Cai&Schlag), which might implicate growth of a spatial code.
|Phenomenon||Spatial Bias||Temporal Bias (increase w/speed beyond thresh)||Spatial Variab||Temporal Variab||Foveo||attn effect||vectors sum||landmarks||monotonic inc w/ motion dur||n. transient most importnt|
|Flash-lag||some||little||0||80ms||petal,||?||yes||less spatial σ?||yes?||yes|
|Frohlich||.5deg fugal:1.5deg,petal:0||0,<27ms fugal:10ms,petal:15ms,0-5ms,2-8ms,79ms||?||0||fugal[10, 16],0||large||N/A|
|Motion adapt||saturat at 5degpersec/Hz||~0||~0||fugal||Yes|
Temporal variability might arise from:
- Position shifting that increases with velocity, with constant noise added to velocity
- Uncertainty in *when* the judgment was supposed to be made
- For any effects caused by afferent latency (Hazelhoff?), variability in latency
deValois stands out as only temporal bias with spatial variability. Then why doesn't Cai and Frohlich have temporal bias? Only easy explanation would be the possibly-greater blur of the deValois stimuli, so we have to check that. Increasing eccentricity would also increase the spatial uncertainty perhaps allowing temporal to manifest
- Linares D and Holcombe AO. . pmid:18753324.
- Kanai R, Sheth BR, and Shimojo S. . pmid:15358076.
- Gauch A and Kerzel D. . pmid:18717394.
- Linares D, Holcombe AO. Unpublished results. 2008
- Hazelhoff FF, Wiersma H. Die Wahrnehmungszeit [The sensation time]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 1924;96:171-188
- Rotman G, Brenner E, and Smeets JB. . pmid:15330702.
- Whitney D, Cavanagh P. (2002) Surrounding motion affects the perceived locations of moving stimuli. Visual Cognition 9:139–152.
- Whitney D and Cavanagh P. . pmid:10966628.
- Müsseler J and Aschersleben G. . pmid:9628999.
- Müsseler J and Kerzel D. . pmid:15208006.
- Kerzel D. . pmid:12136384.
- Müsseler J and Neumann O. . pmid:1494610.
- Kerzel D and Müsseler J. . pmid:11809472.
- Kirschfeld K and Kammer T. . pmid:10746140.
- Carbone E and Pomplun M. . pmid:16645880.
- Thornton IM. . pmid:11991576.
- Hubbard TL and Motes MA. . pmid:11747866.
- Ramachandran VS and Anstis SM. . pmid:2102995.
- Fan Z and Harris J. . pmid:18824016.
- Snowden RJ. . pmid:9843685.
- Nishida S and Johnston A. . pmid:10050853.
- Holcombe, A.O. (2009). Temporal binding favors the early phase of color changes, but not of motion changes, yielding the color-motion asynchrony illusion. Visual Cognition- Special issue on binding, 17(1-2), 232-253. doi:10.1080/13506280802340653
- Post RB, Chi D, Heckmann T, and Chaderjian M. . pmid:2726403.
- White JM, Levi DM, and Aitsebaomo AP. . pmid:1604838.