Articlei-Perception
Dynamics of visual reversals from ambiguous spinning biological-motion and rigid structure-from-motion.
Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Footstep sounds influence bistable biological motion perception.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Visual reversals and biases while observing ambiguous spinning biological motion and rigid structure-from-motion.PloS one · 2026Article
- Visually perceived depth from single-dot circular trajectories.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional rigid structure-from-motion (SFM) and structure from nonrigid biological point-light motion stimuli are perceptually ambiguous. This study investigated the dynamics of perceived reversals in two cases: a spinning point-light walker (PLW) and a spinning rigid human figure in a walking pose (SFM). It specifically focused on two key questions: Could the facing-the-viewer bias (FTV) account for the reversals for spinning PLW? To what extent do motion cues from limb motions or configural cues from the human shape contribute to the perceived reversals? In Experiment 1, participants reported reversals with more than twice the frequency while viewing the upright and inverted PLW than for the rigid structures, but an FTV bias was observed only for the upright walker. The perception of an ambulating living human shape of typically encountered walkers in an upright position thus plays a crucial role in obtaining an FTV bias for these spinning stimuli. In Experiment 2, the human figures walked or rigidly moved along a circular path while facing the motion direction, spinning at the same rate as in Experiment 1. A strong initial FTV bias was then observed, but the reversal rate was substantially reduced compared to reversals when spinning on the same spot. These findings highlight theoretically interesting distinct temporal dynamics of reversals and biases between biological motion and rigid SFM. It is argued that the differences in reversals between conditions have a common cause in the form of past experiences that differ between conditions.
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.