Holcombe:TemporalLimitsReview

SUPA Sydney University Perception and Action Lab Primer editing help refcard

Notes for the project described in [1] as well as forthcoming _Subjective Time_ MIT Press volumes

integration interval

[2] found attention / central viewing dramatically increased motion integration interval, with max integration interval 10 sec as found by Burr and Santoro

effect of distance on temporal binding (in cases where low-level motion was avoided)

• Motoyoshi found x for
• For temporal freezing paper, we don't know precision
• Martini & Nakayama found X
• Long-range alignment judgment we found little effect in [3]
• Binocular rivalry waves can be slow, e.g.
• Migraine aura glacial
• On the other hand,
  • Don't forget Yan's relative motion result
  • Some apparently-spreading processes seem instantaneous (spokes illusion)

More discussion at my Google Doc on the topic, in reviews folder

modeling

Werkhoven, Snippe, & Toet. First-order, second-order, etc. low-pass filter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter

• acceleration and direction alternation

If temporally low-pass the Reichhardt outputs, all speeds represented in speed-modulated stimulus but not in unmodulated stimulus. If temporally low-pass the pre-filtering stage,wouldn't be able to perceive motion at high frequencies If delay stage is temporally low-pass,

refs

1. Holcombe AO. Seeing slow and seeing fast: two limits on perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 May;13(5):216-21. DOI:10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.005 |
2. Melcher D, Crespi S, Bruno A, and Morrone MC. The role of attention in central and peripheral motion integration. Vision Res. 2004 Jun;44(12):1367-74. DOI:10.1016/j.visres.2003.11.023 |
3. Linares D, Holcombe AO, and White AL. Where is the moving object now? Judgments of instantaneous position show poor temporal precision (SD = 70 ms). J Vis. 2009 Dec 8;9(13):9.1-14. DOI:10.1167/9.13.9 |