ArticleJournal of vision2025
Effects of visual cues on scene-relative object motion judgments and concurrent heading estimation from optic flow.
Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
During self-movement, the visual system uses optic flow to identify scene-relative object motion and estimate the direction of self-movement (heading). Although both processes rely on optic flow, their relationship and the conditions under which independent object motion biases heading estimation remain unclear. The causal inference model predicts that misjudging object motion leads to its integration into heading estimation, causing errors in heading estimation, whereas correct judgments reduce these errors. However, most studies have examined these processes independently. Here we used a dual-task paradigm to investigate how visual cues affect the judgment of scene-relative object motion direction and concurrent heading estimation. Participants viewed a 90° × 90° display simulating self-movement through a three-dimensional cloud with a laterally moving object positioned at 8° or 16° from the simulated heading direction. They judged both the object's motion direction in the scene and their heading direction. Results show that increasing an object's speed and reducing its positional offset from the simulated heading direction improved the accuracy of scene-relative object motion direction judgment, but did not consistently improve the accuracy of heading estimation. Surprisingly, visual cues such as binocular disparity and object density improved scene-relative object motion direction judgment but reduced heading estimation accuracy. Furthermore, heading errors mostly peaked at object speeds where observers could reliably judge scene-relative object motion direction, challenging the predictions of the causal inference model. These findings provide strong evidence that scene-relative object motion judgment and heading estimation operate independently and question the generality of the causal inference model in explaining heading biases caused by independent object motion.
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.