ArticleExperimental brain research2017
Aperture extent and stimulus speed affect the perception of visual acceleration.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Target interception in virtual reality is better for natural versus unnatural trajectory shapes and orientations.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Article
- Spatial contextual cues that help predict how a target will accelerate can be used to guide interception.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Trial-by-trial feedback fails to improve the consideration of acceleration in visual time-to-collision estimation.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans are generally poor at detecting the presence of visual acceleration, but it is unclear whether the extent of a field of moving objects through an aperture affects this ability. Hypothetically, the farther a stimulus can accelerate uninterrupted by an aperture's physical constraints, the easier it should be to discern its motion profile. We varied the horizontal extent of the aperture through which continuously accelerating or decelerating random dot arrays were presented at different average speeds, and measured acceleration and deceleration detection thresholds. We also hypothesized that manipulating aperture extent at different speeds would change how observers visually pursue acceleration, which we tested in a control experiment. Results showed that, while there was no difference between the acceleration and deceleration conditions, detection was better in the larger than small aperture conditions. Regardless of aperture size, smaller acceleration and deceleration rates (relative to average speed) were needed to detect changing speed in faster than slower speed ranges. Similarly, observers tracked the stimuli to a greater extent in the larger than small apertures, and smooth pursuit was overall poorer at faster than slower speeds. Notably, the effect of speed on pursuit was greater for the larger than small aperture conditions, suggesting that the small aperture restricted pursuit. Furthermore, there was little difference in psychophysical and eye movement data between the medium and large aperture conditions within each speed range, indicating that it is easier to detect an accelerating profile when the aperture is large enough to encourage a minimum level of pursuit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27866263What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.