ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021
Flow parsing and biological motion.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Optic Flow on Electrocortical Dynamics During Walking and Stepping Over Virtual Obstacles.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Effects of visual cues on scene-relative object motion judgments and concurrent heading estimation from optic flow.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Seeing a Three-Dimensional World in Motion: How the Brain Computes Object Motion and Depth During Self-Motion.Annual review of vision science · 2025Review
- Illusory percepts of curvilinear self-motion when moving through crowds.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Visual perception of travel distance for self-motion through crowds.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- Article
- Limb articulation of biological motion can induce illusory motion perception during self-motion.i-PerceptionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flow parsing is a way to estimate the direction of scene-relative motion of independently moving objects during self-motion of the observer. So far, this has been tested for simple geometric shapes such as dots or bars. Whether further cues such as prior knowledge about typical directions of an object's movement, e.g., typical human motion, are considered in the estimations is currently unclear. Here, we adjudicated between the theory that the direction of scene-relative motion of humans is estimated exclusively by flow parsing, just like for simple geometric objects, and the theory that prior knowledge about biological motion affects estimation of perceived direction of scene-relative motion of humans. We placed a human point-light walker in optic flow fields that simulated forward motion of the observer. We introduced conflicts between biological features of the walker (i.e., facing and articulation) and the direction of scene-relative motion. We investigated whether perceived direction of scene-relative motion was biased towards biological features and compared the results to perceived direction of scene-relative motion of scrambled walkers and dot clouds. We found that for humans the perceived direction of scene-relative motion was biased towards biological features. Additionally, we found larger flow parsing gain for humans compared to the other walker types. This indicates that flow parsing is not the only visual mechanism relevant for estimating the direction of scene-relative motion of independently moving objects during self-motion: observers also rely on prior knowledge about typical object motion, such as typical facing and articulation of humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.