Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32805041›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2020

Pitting optic flow, object motion, and biological motion against each other.

Krischan Koerfer, Markus Lappe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Flow parsing and biological motion.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Krischan KoerferInstitute for Psychology and Otto Creutzfeldt Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Markus LappeInstitute for Psychology and Otto Creutzfeldt Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heading estimation from optic flow is crucial for safe locomotion but becomes inaccurate if independent object motion is present. In ecological settings, such motion typically involves other animals or humans walking across the scene. An independently walking person presents a local disturbance of the flow field, which moves across the flow field as the walker traverses the scene. Is the bias in heading estimation produced by the local disturbance of the flow field or by the movement of the walker through the scene? We present a novel flow field stimulus in which the local flow disturbance and the movement of the walker can be pitted against each other. Each frame of this stimulus consists of a structureless random dot distribution. Across frames, the body shape of a walker is molded by presenting different flow field dynamics within and outside the body shape. In different experimental conditions, the flow within the body shape can be congruent with the walker's movement, incongruent with it, or congruent with the background flow. We show that heading inaccuracy results from the local flow disturbance rather than the movement through the scene. Moreover, we show that the local disturbances of the optic flow can be used to segment the walker and support biological motion perception to some degree. The dichotomous result that the walker can be segmented from the scene but that heading perception is nonetheless influenced by the flow produced by the walker confirms separate visual pathways for heading estimation, object segmentation, and biological motion perception.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMaleMotion PerceptionMovementOptic FlowVisual PerceptionWalkingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32805041
PMCPMC7438637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.