Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28456533›Full record

ArticleVision research2017

Paradoxical perception of object identity in visual motion.

Aleksandra Zharikova, Sergei Gepshtein, Cees van Leeuwen

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vision research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aleksandra ZharikovaLaboratory for Perceptual Dynamics, University of Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: aleksandra.zharikova@kuleuven.be.
Sergei GepshteinCenter for Neurobiology of Vision, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, USA.
Cees van LeeuwenLaboratory for Perceptual Dynamics, University of Leuven, Belgium; Center for Cognitive Science, TU Kaiserslautern, Germany.

Funding

Neural mechanisms underlying adaptive optimization of visual sensitivityR01EY018613 · NEI · SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES · PI ALBRIGHT, THOMAS D, GEPSHTEIN, SERGEI · 2011 to 2013
$1.5M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY018613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the course of perceptual organization, incomplete optical stimulation can evoke the experience of complete objects with distinct perceptual identities. According to a well-known principle of perceptual organization, stimulus parts separated by shorter spatial distances are more likely to appear as parts of the same perceptual identity. Whereas this principle of proximity has been confirmed in many studies of perceptual grouping in static displays, we show that it does not generalize to perception of object identity in dynamic displays, where the parts are separated by spatial and temporal distances. We use ambiguous displays which contain multiple moving parts and which can be perceived two ways: as two large objects that gradually change their size or as multiple smaller objects that rotate independent of one another. Grouping over long and short distances corresponds to the perception of the respectively large and small objects. We find that grouping over long distances is often preferred to grouping over short distances, against predictions of the proximity principle. Even though these effects are observed at high luminance contrast, we show that they are consistent with results obtained at the threshold of luminance contrast, in agreement with predictions of a theory of efficient motion measurement. This is evidence that the perception of object identity can be explained by a computational principle of neural economy rather than by the empirical principle of proximity.

Indexed as

Contrast SensitivityHumansMotion PerceptionPattern Recognition, VisualApparent motionContrast sensitivityGroupingNeural economyPerceptual identityPerceptual organization

Identifiers

PMID28456533
PMCPMC5548134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.