From OpenWetWare

Revision as of 02:00, 28 March 2009 by Alex O. Holcombe (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search


Alex Holcombe
Sarah McIntyre
Fahed Jbarah
• Shih-Yu Lo
• Patrick Goodbourn
Lizzy Nguyen


Testing Booth Calendar
Temporal Review
Vernier related
Binding MOT lags
Light and latency
Position and motion


Skills Checklist
Python Programming
Psychopy/VisionEgg Installation Notes
R analysis,plot,stats
Verifying timing
Programming Cheat Sheets

Biphasic Neuron Extrap
A-V flash lag

Following on from [1]

  • 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 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[1],[2]  ? yes less spatial σ? yes? yes
Cai .5deg 0[3, 4] ? 0 fugal[3] ??
Hazelhoff,[5] 0 large ?? discrepant Ss[3] ?? ?? ?? yes[6]
Whitney&Cav signif ~0[7],[8] ?? betting0 ?? large  ?
Frohlich .5deg fugal:1.5deg,petal:0[9] 0[3],<27ms[10] fugal:10ms,petal:15ms[9],0-5ms[11],2-8ms[12],79ms[7]


? 0 fugal[9, 15],0[3] large N/A
onset-repuls <=15ms[16],[17]
repr momentum 33ms[17]
deValois large miniscule miniscule fugal[1] NO
kinetic edge[18] read[19] [19] [19] petal[19]
Motion capture[20]
Motion adapt saturat at 5degpersec/Hz[21] ~0[22] ~0[22] fugal Yes[22]
binding 0[23]
induced motion 0? Yes[24]
timed buttonpress

Temporal variability might arise from:

  1. Position shifting that increases with velocity, with constant noise added to velocity
  2. Uncertainty in *when* the judgment was supposed to be made
  3. 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[25] perhaps allowing temporal to manifest


  1. Linares D and Holcombe AO. . pmid:18753324. PubMed HubMed [LinaresHolcombe2008neurophys]
  2. Kanai R, Sheth BR, and Shimojo S. . pmid:15358076. PubMed HubMed [KanaiShethShimojo04]
  3. Linares D, Holcombe AO. Unpublished results. 2008. Reported at VSS 2009, Dissociating motion-induced position illusions by the velocity dependence of both their magnitude and their variability.


  4. Gauch A and Kerzel D. . pmid:18717394. PubMed HubMed [Gauch08]
  5. Hazelhoff FF, Wiersma H. Die Wahrnehmungszeit [The sensation time]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie. 1924;96:171-188


  6. Rotman G, Brenner E, and Smeets JB. . pmid:15330702. PubMed HubMed [RotmanBS04]
  7. Whitney D, Cavanagh P. (2002) Surrounding motion affects the perceived locations of moving stimuli. Visual Cognition 9:139–152.


  8. Whitney D and Cavanagh P. . pmid:10966628. PubMed HubMed [WhitneyCavanagh00]
  9. Müsseler J and Aschersleben G. . pmid:9628999. PubMed HubMed [Musseler98]
  10. Müsseler J and Kerzel D. . pmid:15208006. PubMed HubMed [MusselerKerzel04]
  11. Kerzel D. . pmid:12136384. PubMed HubMed [Kerzel02]
  12. Müsseler J and Neumann O. . pmid:1494610. PubMed HubMed [MusselerNeumann92]
  13. Kerzel D and Müsseler J. . pmid:11809472. PubMed HubMed [KerzelMusseler02]
  14. Kirschfeld K and Kammer T. . pmid:10746140. PubMed HubMed [Kirschfeld98]
  15. Carbone E and Pomplun M. . pmid:16645880. PubMed HubMed [CarbonePomplun07]
  16. Thornton IM. . pmid:11991576. PubMed HubMed [Thornton02]
  17. Hubbard TL and Motes MA. . pmid:11747866. PubMed HubMed [HubbardMotes]
  18. Ramachandran VS and Anstis SM. . pmid:2102995. PubMed HubMed [RamaAnstis90]
  19. Fan Z and Harris J. . pmid:18824016. PubMed HubMed [FanHarris08]
  20. Ramachandran VS and Inada V. . pmid:3940050. PubMed HubMed [RamaInada1985]
  21. Snowden RJ. . pmid:9843685. PubMed HubMed [Snowden98]
  22. Nishida S and Johnston A. . pmid:10050853. PubMed HubMed [NishidaJohnston99]
  23. 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


  24. Post RB, Chi D, Heckmann T, and Chaderjian M. . pmid:2726403. PubMed HubMed [PostEtAl89]
  25. White JM, Levi DM, and Aitsebaomo AP. . pmid:1604838. PubMed HubMed [WhiteLeviAitsebaomo1992]
All Medline abstracts: PubMed HubMed
Personal tools