Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37171804›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2023

Motion duration is overestimated behind an occluder in action and perception tasks.

Melisa Menceloglu, Joo-Hyun Song

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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

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.

Melisa MencelogluDepartment of Cognitive, Linguistic & Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Joo-Hyun SongDepartment of Cognitive, Linguistic & Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motion estimation behind an occluder is a common task in situations like crossing the street or passing another car. People tend to overestimate the duration of an object's motion when it gets occluded for subsecond motion durations. Here, we explored (a) whether this bias depended on the type of interceptive action: discrete keypress versus continuous reach and (b) whether it was present in a perception task without an interceptive action. We used a prediction-motion task and presented a bar moving across the screen with a constant velocity that later became occluded. In the action task, participants stopped the occluded bar when they thought the bar reached the goal position via keypress or reach. They were more likely to stop the bar after it passed the goal position regardless of the action type, suggesting that the duration of occluded motion was overestimated (or its speed was underestimated). In the perception task, where participants judged whether a tone was presented before or after the bar reached the goal position, a similar bias was observed. In both tasks, the bias was near constant across motion durations and directions and grew over trials. We speculate that this robust bias may be due to a temporal illusion, Bayesian slow-motion prior, or the processing of the visible-occluded boundary crossing. Understanding its exact mechanism, the conditions on which it depends, and the relative roles of speed and time perception requires further research.

Indexed as

IllusionsMotion PerceptionTime PerceptionBayes TheoremHumansMotion

Identifiers

PMID37171804
PMCPMC10184779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.