Motion silencing illusion

Last updated
Silencinghue Silencinghue.jpg
Silencinghue

Motion silencing is an illusion or perceptual phenomenon in which objects that are rapidly changing in a particular salient property seem to cease changing with motion. The illusion was first identified by Jordan Suchow and George Alvarez in the publication of their research on the topic. [1]

Contents

It is a visual illusion in which a set of objects that change in luminance, [2] hue, [2] size, [2] or shape [2] appears to stop changing when it moves. It was discovered by Jordan Suchow [3] and George Alvarez [4] of Harvard University, and described in a paper published in Current Biology. [5] Silencing won the Neural Correlate Society's "Best visual illusion of the year contest" in 2011. [6]

Overview

The original article by Suchow and Alvarez describes the phenomenon occurring when participants observe a series of videos showing one hundred small dots arranged in a ring shape around a central fixation point that change either in color, brightness, size or shape. [1] These rings would alternate between phases of motionlessness and movement in a rotational back and forward motion. Participants are instructed to focus on the fixation point and adjust the rate of the changing properties in the stationary phase to match that of the moving phase. The faster the rotational movement, the slower the dots appeared to change. [1] It has been inferred by the authors of the original study, [1] as well as by others that have replicated the effect, that although the task involves motion in space and motion on the retina, it is the movement of the image across the retina that is responsible for the silencing effect. [7] [8] In the same study, Suchow and Alvarez required participants to complete a fixation-tracking task in order to assess whether Conversely, the illusory effect can be eliminated by moving the eye to follow the movement of the image or monitoring its changing properties specifically. [8]

Motion silencing stems from the study of change blindness which in essence is the failure to detect change in the visual field. [9] The phenomenon has been studied extensively, by means of such methods as flicker tasks, [10] forced saccade tasks, [11] mudsplashes, [12] disrupted and undisrupted scene transitions, [13] incremental scene rotation, [14] and videos. [15] Research has demonstrated that people often fail to detect significant changes to images when the observer is not attending to the changing object fully, [9] [10] [13] thus if attention is paid to the region where the change is occurring then change can be detected and the effect is forestalled. [1] Even with attention observers sometimes fail to detect change due to incoherency in mental representations. [16] [17] In the case of motion silencing, the effect takes place in the peripheral vision, such that changes to the area around, but not at, the region of fixation is where change goes undetected. [18] This inability to compare mental representations/perceptual information from one view to the next has inspired a number of explanations. The effect has been attributed to a general tendency to assume that the properties of objects or the features of a scene are stable, [15] the idea that slight discrepancies between the expected scene and the actual scene are the result of malfunction in sensorimotor processes, [14] or that the lack of saliency of a change when it is gradual fails to draw one's attention. [13]

Following the theme of change going unnoticed, motion silencing was discovered as a type of change blindness. Since its discovery, the motion silencing phenomenon first tested by Suchow & Alvarez has been replicated in an attempt to further describe the nature of the effect and the mechanisms behind it [18] [19] [20] [21] ).

It has been suggested that motion silencing is related to motion blindness, [8] which is another perceptual phenomenon in which salient static objects appear and disappear when they are surrounded by a global moving pattern. [22] In a study which assessed magnetic resonance images of the brain structures involved during motion-induced blindness found there to be activation in the ventral and dorsal pathways, specifically V4 of the ventral pathway and V3A, V3B, and the posterior intraparietal sulcus in the dorsal pathway. [23] In the way that the dorsal pathway processes the moving pattern and in turn suppresses the ventral pathway's representation of the static salient objects, the same processes and patterns of activation may be found in the motion silencing illusion. [8]

Factors influencing motion silencing

Dot spacing has been found to influence motion silencing in terms of crowding, by causing dots and their accompanying alternating properties to merge due to their close proximity to one another and disallowing them to perceived in isolation. [19] [20] The silencing effect fails when a display contains limited stimuli and it appears that it is the distance between objects from their centers and not their edges that intensifies the silencing effect, and so it would follow that object size is of little importance. The critical spacing necessary for silencing to occur is roughly half the eccentricity of the rings in the display.

There is evidence that global motion factors into motion induced silencing also. [20] Global motion is the movement of the entire image (in this case rotational) along with the circular trajectory that all the dots in the display adhere to, through rotational movement change signals can be hazed together, basically eliminating them. [20] The motion threshold that was found to be required for silencing to take effect was 0.2 rotations per second whilst adhering to the parameters of the original experiments, [20] and this threshold decreased as space between dots decreased, thus demonstrating the combined influence of crowding, global motion [20] and velocity. [1] [18]

Suchow and Alvarez explain the role that velocity has on motion silencing in that local retinotopic (of the retina) detectors fixate on specific points in the visual field, and when they are only permitted a short amount of time to process the changes occurring they do not have enough time to detect changes. [1] The effect of velocity explains why silencing is more potent with fast motion on the retina as opposed to slow motion.

Eccentricity, which is a mathematical constant conveyed in the form of a ratio and essentially describes to what degree a conic section deviates from being circular. Another variable that impacts motion silencing, eccentricity determines to what extent motion causes silencing. [20] Choi, Bovik, and Cormack (2016) observed that when eccentricity in peripheral vision increases, motion silencing decreases. [18]

Theoretical explanations

Some theories have been proposed pertaining to instances of change detection failure, as in the case of motion silencing or change blindness. One such proposition is that of temporal freezing, which suggests that the observer retains the original image and its features without updating it as change occurs. [24] The alternative explanation is that implicit updating is responsible for the effect. According to the implicit updating account, the observer is aware of the current state of the image, but not of the fact that it has changed. [14] Suchow and Alvarez [1] conducted an experiment in order to identify which theory best explained the motion silencing effect they had uncovered. They based their experiment on Hollingworth and Henderson's task where participants are required to view a picture of a room where the camera angle shifted incrementally. The picture then switched back to its initial position and participants responded with whether they noticed the change or not. [14] Such an experiment, can provide support for either the temporal freezing explanation or the implicit updating account depending on the results. Hollingworth and Henderson found that participants did, in fact, notice the change, a finding that supports implicit updating given the fact that they evidently had a mental representation of the final image and when the camera reverted to original angle, they judged that it was different. [14] This finding was replicated by Suchow and Alvarez in their adapted study and implicit updating in the currently accepted explanation for motion silencing. [1]

Extending the research

Although the discovery of the motion silencing illusion is relatively new, there has been some interesting research done looking to investigate the parameters of the effect. One study was conducted concerning whether silencing is exclusively caused by motion or whether it can be produced by other coherent visual changes such as in color or size. [21] It was found that silencing can occur without motion or coherent changes. Another study sought to examine whether the motion silencing illusion generalizes to infants, specifically four-month-olds, to test the hypothesis that the mechanisms underlying the ability to integrate motion patterns of individual dots into coherent global motion to the extent that it hinders the perception of the dots’ colour changes would be developed by this early age. [8] An infant's typical preference for changing colors was not observed once the rings of dots was sent into motion (following the stimuli used in Suchow and Alvarez's experiments [1] ). Instead, their attention was equally distributed between the two targets, changing and unchanging. Adults were included in the experiment for comparison purposes and they concluded that the mechanisms involved in the motion silencing effect operate for children as young as 4 months old also. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

An illusion is a distortion of the senses, which can reveal how the mind normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. Although illusions distort the human perception of reality, they are generally shared by most people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Optical illusion</span> Visually perceived images that differ from objective reality

In visual perception, an optical illusion is an illusion caused by the visual system and characterized by a visual percept that arguably appears to differ from reality. Illusions come in a wide variety; their categorization is difficult because the underlying cause is often not clear but a classification proposed by Richard Gregory is useful as an orientation. According to that, there are three main classes: physical, physiological, and cognitive illusions, and in each class there are four kinds: Ambiguities, distortions, paradoxes, and fictions. A classical example for a physical distortion would be the apparent bending of a stick half immersed in water; an example for a physiological paradox is the motion aftereffect. An example for a physiological fiction is an afterimage. Three typical cognitive distortions are the Ponzo, Poggendorff, and Müller-Lyer illusion. Physical illusions are caused by the physical environment, e.g. by the optical properties of water. Physiological illusions arise in the eye or the visual pathway, e.g. from the effects of excessive stimulation of a specific receptor type. Cognitive visual illusions are the result of unconscious inferences and are perhaps those most widely known.

Blindsight is the ability of people who are cortically blind to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see due to lesions in the primary visual cortex, also known as the striate cortex or Brodmann Area 17. The term was coined by Lawrence Weiskrantz and his colleagues in a paper published in a 1974 issue of Brain. A previous paper studying the discriminatory capacity of a cortically blind patient was published in Nature in 1973. The assumed existence of blindsight is controversial, with some arguing that it is merely degraded conscious vision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Phi phenomenon</span> Optical illusion of apparent motion

The term phi phenomenon is used in a narrow sense for an apparent motion that is observed if two nearby optical stimuli are presented in alternation with a relatively high frequency. In contrast to beta movement, seen at lower frequencies, the stimuli themselves do not appear to move. Instead, a diffuse, amorphous shadowlike something seems to jump in front of the stimuli and occlude them temporarily. This shadow seems to have nearly the color of the background. Max Wertheimer first described this form of apparent movement in his habilitation thesis, published 1912, marking the birth of Gestalt psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grid illusion</span> Kind of grid that deceives a persons vision

A grid illusion is any kind of grid that deceives a person's vision. The two most common types of grid illusions are the Hermann grid illusion and the scintillating grid illusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Depth perception</span> Visual ability to perceive the world in 3D

Depth perception is the ability to perceive distance to objects in the world using the visual system and visual perception. It is a major factor in perceiving the world in three dimensions

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visual system</span> Body parts responsible for vision

The visual system is the physiological basis of visual perception. The system detects, transduces and interprets information concerning light within the visible range to construct an image and build a mental model of the surrounding environment. The visual system is associated with the eye and functionally divided into the optical system and the neural system.

The flicker fusion threshold, also known as critical flicker frequency or flicker fusion rate, is the frequency at which a flickering light appears steady to the average human observer. It is a concept studied in vision science, more specifically in the psychophysics of visual perception. A traditional term for "flicker fusion" is "persistence of vision", but this has also been used to describe positive afterimages or motion blur. Although flicker can be detected for many waveforms representing time-variant fluctuations of intensity, it is conventionally, and most easily, studied in terms of sinusoidal modulation of intensity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vestibulo–ocular reflex</span> Reflex where rotation of the head causes eye movement to stabilize vision

The vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) is a reflex that acts to stabilize gaze during head movement, with eye movement due to activation of the vestibular system, it is also known as the Cervico-ocular reflex. The reflex acts to stabilize images on the retinas of the eye during head movement. Gaze is held steadily on a location by producing eye movements in the direction opposite that of head movement. For example, when the head moves to the right, the eyes move to the left, meaning the image a person sees stays the same even though the head has turned. Since slight head movement is present all the time, VOR is necessary for stabilizing vision: people with an impaired reflex find it difficult to read using print, because the eyes do not stabilise during small head tremors, and also because damage to reflex can cause nystagmus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visual acuity</span> Clarity of vision

Visual acuity (VA) commonly refers to the clarity of vision, but technically rates an animal's ability to recognize small details with precision. Visual acuity depends on optical and neural factors. Optical factors of the eye influence the sharpness of an image on its retina. Neural factors include the health and functioning of the retina, of the neural pathways to the brain, and of the interpretative faculty of the brain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ternus illusion</span>

The Ternus illusion, also commonly referred to as the Ternus Effect, is an illusion related to human visual perception involving apparent motion. In a simplified explanation of one form of the illusion, two discs, are shown side by side as the first frame in a sequence of three frames. Next a blank frame is presented for a very short, variable duration. In the final frame, two similar discs are then shown in a shifted position. Depending on various factors including the time intervals between frames as well as spacing and layout, observers perceive either element motion, in which L appears to move to R while C remains stationary or they report experiencing group motion, in which L and C appear to move together to C and R. Both element motion and group motion can be observed in animated examples to the right in Figures 1 and 2.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Motion perception</span> Inferring the speed and direction of objects

Motion perception is the process of inferring the speed and direction of elements in a scene based on visual, vestibular and proprioceptive inputs. Although this process appears straightforward to most observers, it has proven to be a difficult problem from a computational perspective, and difficult to explain in terms of neural processing.

Stereopsis is the component of depth perception retrieved through binocular vision. Stereopsis is not the only contributor to depth perception, but it is a major one. Binocular vision happens because each eye receives a different image because they are in slightly different positions in one's head. These positional differences are referred to as "horizontal disparities" or, more generally, "binocular disparities". Disparities are processed in the visual cortex of the brain to yield depth perception. While binocular disparities are naturally present when viewing a real three-dimensional scene with two eyes, they can also be simulated by artificially presenting two different images separately to each eye using a method called stereoscopy. The perception of depth in such cases is also referred to as "stereoscopic depth".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Change blindness</span> Perceptual phenomenon

Change blindness is a perceptual phenomenon that occurs when a change in a visual stimulus is introduced and the observer does not notice it. For example, observers often fail to notice major differences introduced into an image while it flickers off and on again. People's poor ability to detect changes has been argued to reflect fundamental limitations of human attention. Change blindness has become a highly researched topic and some have argued that it may have important practical implications in areas such as eyewitness testimony and distractions while driving.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flash lag illusion</span> Optical illusion

The flash lag illusion or flash-lag effect is a visual illusion wherein a flash and a moving object that appear in the same location are perceived to be displaced from one another. Several explanations for this simple illusion have been explored in the neuroscience literature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Filling-in</span> Phenomena in vision

In vision, filling-in phenomena are those responsible for the completion of missing information across the physiological blind spot, and across natural and artificial scotomata. There is also evidence for similar mechanisms of completion in normal visual analysis. Classical demonstrations of perceptual filling-in involve filling in at the blind spot in monocular vision, and images stabilized on the retina either by means of special lenses, or under certain conditions of steady fixation. For example, naturally in monocular vision at the physiological blind spot, the percept is not a hole in the visual field, but the content is “filled-in” based on information from the surrounding visual field. When a textured stimulus is presented centered on but extending beyond the region of the blind spot, a continuous texture is perceived. This partially inferred percept is paradoxically considered more reliable than a percept based on external input..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kinetic depth effect</span> Phenomenon of visual perception

In visual perception, the kinetic depth effect refers to the phenomenon whereby the three-dimensional structural form of an object can be perceived when the object is moving. In the absence of other visual depth cues, this might be the only perception mechanism available to infer the object's shape. Being able to identify a structure from a motion stimulus through the human visual system was shown by Hans Wallach and O'Connell in the 1950s through their experiments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Motion-induced blindness</span> Optical illusion

Motion Induced Blindness (MIB), also known as Bonneh's illusion is a visual illusion in which a large, continuously moving pattern erases from perception some small, continuously presented, stationary dots when one looks steadily at the center of the display. It was discovered by Bonneh, Cooperman, and Sagi (2001), who used a swarm of blue dots moving on a virtual sphere as the larger pattern and three small yellow dots as the smaller pattern. They found that after about 10 seconds, one or more of the dots disappeared for brief, random times.

Visual perception is the ability to interpret the surrounding environment through photopic vision, color vision, scotopic vision, and mesopic vision, using light in the visible spectrum reflected by objects in the environment. This is different from visual acuity, which refers to how clearly a person sees. A person can have problems with visual perceptual processing even if they have 20/20 vision.

A phantom contour is a type of illusory contour. Most illusory contours are seen in still images, such as the Kanizsa triangle and the Ehrenstein illusion. A phantom contour, however, is perceived in the presence of moving or flickering images with contrast reversal. The rapid, continuous alternation between opposing, but correlated, adjacent images creates the perception of a contour that is not physically present in the still images. Quaid et al. have also authored a PhD thesis on the phantom contour illusion and its spatiotemporal limits which maps out limits and proposes mechanisms for its perception centering around magnocellularly driven visual area MT.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Suchow, Jordan W.; Alvarez, George A. (2011). "Motion silences awareness of visual change". Current Biology. 21 (2): 140–143. Bibcode:2011CBio...21..140S. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.12.019 . PMID   21215632.
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Demonstrations of silencing".
  3. ↑ Jordan Suchow is online at http://jwsu.ch/ow/
  4. ↑ George Alvarez is online at http://visionlab.harvard.edu/Members/George/Welcome.html
  5. ↑ Suchow, J.W., & Alvarez, G.A. (2011). Motion silences awareness of visual change. Current Biology. doi : 10.1016/j.cub.2010.12.019
  6. ↑ "Best Illusion of 2011 Reveals Visual Quirk". Live Science . 10 May 2011.
  7. ↑ Suchow, J.; Alvarez, G. (2011b). "Which kinds of motion silence awareness of visual change?". Journal of Vision. 21 (2): 140–143. Bibcode:2011CBio...21..140S. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.12.019 . PMID   21215632.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kayšek, M. (2013). "Rotary motion impairs attention to color change in four-month-old infants". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 115 (2): 262–272. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.005. PMID   23563158.
  9. 1 2 Simmons, Daniel J.; Rensink, Ronald A. (2005). "Change blindness: Past, present, and future". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 9 (1): 16–20. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.130.8597 . doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006. PMID   15639436. S2CID   620487.
  10. 1 2 Rensink, Ronald A. (1997). "To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes". Psychological Science. 8 (5): 368–373. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.308.7633 . doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00427.x. S2CID   1945079.
  11. ↑ Blackmore, S. J.; Breistaff, G.; Nelson, K.; Troscianko, T. (1995). "Is the richness of visual world an illusion?". Perception. 24 (9): 1075–1081. doi:10.1068/p241075. PMID   8552459. S2CID   28031132.
  12. ↑ O'Regan, J. K.; Rensink, R. A.; Clark, J. J. (1999). "Change-blindness as a result of "mudsplashes"". Nature. 398 (6722): 34. Bibcode:1999Natur.398...34O. doi: 10.1038/17953 . PMID   10078528.
  13. 1 2 3 Simons, Daniel J.; Franconeri, Steven L.; Reimer, Rebecca L. (2000). "Change blindness in the absence of a visual disruption". Perception. 29 (10): 1143–1154. doi:10.1068/p3104. PMID   11220207. S2CID   14025562.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 Hollingworth, Andrew; Henderson, John M. (2004). "Sustained change blindness to incremental scene rotation: a discussion between explicit change detection and visual memory". Perception & Psychophysics. 66 (5): 800–807. doi: 10.3758/bf03194974 . PMID   15495905.
  15. 1 2 Simmons, D. J. (1996). "In sight, out of mind: When object representations fail". Psychological Science. 7 (5): 301–305. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00378.x. S2CID   145120625.
  16. ↑ Fernández-duque, D.; Thornton, L. M. (2000). "Change detection without awareness: Do explicit reports underestimate the representation of change in the visual system?". Visual Cognition. 7 (1–3): 324–344. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.704.9155 . doi:10.1080/135062800394838. S2CID   16770792.
  17. ↑ Levin, D. T.; Simons, D. J. (1997). "Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures". Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 4 (4): 501–506. doi: 10.3758/bf03214339 .
  18. 1 2 3 4 Choi, K. C.; Bovik, A. C.; Cormack, L. K. (2016). "The effect of eccentricity and spatiotemporal energy on motion silencing". Journal of Vision. 1 (19): 19. doi: 10.1167/16.5.19 . PMID   27019052.
  19. 1 2 Choi, L. K.; Bovik, A. C.; Cormack, L. K. (2014). "Spatiotemporal flicker detector model of motion silencing". Perception. 43 (12): 1286–1302. doi:10.1068/p7772. PMID   25669047. S2CID   6588976.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Turi, M.; Burr, D. (2013). "The 'motion silencing' illusion results from global motion and crowding". Journal of Vision. 13 (5): 14. doi: 10.1167/13.5.14 . PMID   23599418.
  21. 1 2 Pierce, J. W. (2013). "Is it just motion that silences awareness of other visual change?". Journal of Vision. 13 (7): 17. doi: 10.1167/13.7.17 . PMID   23814072.
  22. ↑ Bonneh, Y. S.; Cooperman, A.; Sagi, D. (2001). "Motion-induced blindness in normal observers". Nature. 411 (6839): 798–801. Bibcode:2001Natur.411..798B. doi:10.1038/35081073. PMID   11459058. S2CID   4307191.
  23. ↑ Donner, T. H.; Sagi, D.; Bonneh, Y. S.; Heeger, D. J. (2008). "Opposite neural signatures of motion-induced blindness in human dorsal and ventral visual cortex". Journal of Neuroscience. 28 (41): 10298–10310. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2371-08.2008. PMC   2570589 . PMID   18842889.
  24. ↑ Motoyoshi, Isamu (2007). "Temporal freezing of visual features". Current Biology. 17 (11): 404–406. Bibcode:2007CBio...17.R404M. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.04.030 . PMID   17550762.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.