Anstis, S. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2022

Exploring the frame effect

Probes flashed within a moving frame are dramatically displaced (Ozkan et al, 2021; Wong &Mack, 1981). The effect is much larger than that seen on static or moving probes (induced motion, Duncker, 1929; Wallach et al, 1978). These flashed probes are often perceived with the separation they have in frame coordinates -- a 100% effect. Here we explore this frame effect on flashed tests with several versions of the standard stimulus. We find that the frame effect holds for smoothly or abruptly displacing frames, even when the frame changed shape or orientation between the endpoints of its travel. The path could be non-linear, even circular. The effect was driven by perceived not physical motion. When there were competing overlapping frames, the effect was determined by which frame was attended. There were a number of constraints that limited the effect. A static anchor near the flashes suppressed the effect but an extended static texture did not. If the probes were continuous rather than flashed, the effect was abolished. The observational reports of 30 online participants suggest that the frame effect is robust to many variations in its shape and path and leads to a perception of flashed tests in their locations relative to the frame as if the frame were stationary. Our results highlight the role of frame continuity and of the grouping of the flashes with the frame in generating the frame effect.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2021

Paradoxical stabilization of relative position in moving frames

To capture where things are and what they are doing, the visual system may extract the position and motion of each object relative to its surrounding frame of referencee.g., 1,2. Here we report a particularly powerful example where a paradoxical stabilization is produced by a moving frame. We first take a frame that moves left and right and we flash its right edge before, and its left edge after, the frames motion. For all frame displacements tested, the two edges are perceived as stabilized, with the left edge on the left and right edge on the right, separated by the frames width as if the frame were not moving. This illusory stabilization holds even when the frame travels farther than its width, reversing the actual spatial order of the two flashes. Despite this stabilization, the motion of the frame is still seen, albeit much reduced, and this hides the paradoxical standstill of relative positions. In a second experiment, two probes are flashed inside the frame at the same physical location before and after the frame moves. Despite being physically superimposed, the probes are perceived widely separated, again as if they were seen in the frames coordinates and the frame were stationary. This illusory separation is set by the distance of the frames travel, independently of its speed. This paradoxical stabilization suggests a link to visual constancy across eye movements where the displacement of the entire visual scene may act as a frame to stabilize the perception of relative locations.

neuroscience↗