2010Journal of VisionOpen access

Recognition affects the perception of apparent motion

Jennifer L. Solberg, J. M. Brown

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

Purpose. Research indicates the perception of apparent motion can be influenced by viewers' knowledge of how objects move in the environment. Shiffrar and Freyd (1990) suggested “biological” apparent motion is unique when they reported the perception of apparent motion for human figures was different from inanimate objects. We investigated whether this effect is due to the biological nature of the stimuli or due to the stimuli being recognized as familiar objects. Methods. In two experiments, ambiguous apparent motion displays were created by alternating between two pictures of an object on either side of a wall. Objects could be perceived to pass through or around the wall. Participants reported which path of motion they perceived. Degraded versions of the stimuli were also used to test whether recognition of the objects influenced the extent to which the physically possible, “around” path was seen. Results. Participants reported seeing the physically possible path of motion for both objects capable of movement in the environment and objects not usually seen in motion. Participants did not report seeing the physically possible path with the degraded versions of the objects. Conclusions. The apparent motion effect previously only found with human stimuli can be found with non-human stimuli, provided they depict familiar objects in the environment. The results suggest when stimuli are recognizable objects, observers use knowledge of how objects interact to interpret ambiguous apparent motion displays. ShiffrarM.FreydJ.(1990). Apparent motion of the human body. Psychological Science, 1, 257–264.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Purpose. Research indicates the perception of apparent motion can be influenced by viewers' knowledge of how objects move in the environment. Shiffrar and Freyd (1990) suggested “biological” apparent motion is unique when they reported the perception of apparent motion for human figures was different from inanimate objects. We investigated whether this effect is due to the biological nature of the stimuli or due to the stimuli being recognized as familiar objects. Methods. In two experiments, ambiguous apparent motion displays were created by alternating between two pictures of an object on either side of a wall. Objects could be perceived to pass through or around the wall. Participants reported which path of motion they perceived. Degraded versions of the stimuli were also used to test whether recognition of the objects influenced the extent to which the physically possible, “around” path was seen. Results. Participants reported seeing the physically possible path of motion for both objects capable of movement in the environment and objects not usually seen in motion. Participants did not report seeing the physically possible path with the degraded versions of the objects. Conclusions. The apparent motion effect previously only found with human stimuli can be found with non-human stimuli, provided they depict familiar objects in the environment. The results suggest when stimuli are recognizable objects, observers use knowledge of how objects interact to interpret ambiguous apparent motion displays. ShiffrarM.FreydJ.(1990). Apparent motion of the human body. Psychological Science, 1, 257–264.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Purpose. Research indicates the perception of apparent motion can be influenced by viewers' knowledge of how objects move in the environment. Shiffrar and Freyd (1990) suggested “biological” apparent motion is unique when they reported the perception of apparent motion for human figures was different from inanimate objects. We investigated whether this effect is due to the biological nature of the stimuli or due to the stimuli being recognized as familiar objects. Methods. In two experiments, ambiguous apparent motion displays were created by alternating between two pictures of an object on either side of a wall. Objects could be perceived to pass through or around the wall. Participants reported which path of motion they perceived. Degraded versions of the stimuli were also used to test whether recognition of the objects influenced the extent to which the physically possible, “around” path was seen. Results. Participants reported seeing the physically possible path of motion for both objects capable of movement in the environment and objects not usually seen in motion. Participants did not report seeing the physically possible path with the degraded versions of the objects. Conclusions. The apparent motion effect previously only found with human stimuli can be found with non-human stimuli, provided they depict familiar objects in the environment. The results suggest when stimuli are recognizable objects, observers use knowledge of how objects interact to interpret ambiguous apparent motion displays. ShiffrarM.FreydJ.(1990). Apparent motion of the human body. Psychological Science, 1, 257–264.

Key concepts: Biological motion, Motion (physics), Perception, Psychology, Object (grammar), Communication, Motion perception, Path (computing)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Recognition affects the perception of apparent motion — Research Paper | ScholarLens