No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Transient signals per se do not disrupt the flash-lag effect
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 May 2008
Abstract
Nijhawan's theory rests on the assumption that transient signals compete with predictive signals to generate the visual percept. We describe experiments that show that this assumption is incorrect. Our results are consistent with an alternative theory that proposes that vision is instead postdictive, in that the perception of an event is influenced by occurrences after the event.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright ©Cambridge University Press 2008
References
Eagleman, D. M. & Sejnowski, T. J. (2007) Motion signals bias localization judgments: a unified explanation for the flash-lag, flash-drag, flash-jump, and Frohlich illusions. Journal of Vision 7(4):3, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubel, D. H. & Wiesel, T. N. (1961) Integrative action in the cat's lateral geniculate body. Journal of Physiology 155:385–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubel, D. H. & Wiesel, T. N. (1962) Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. Journal of Physiology 160:106–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maus, G. W. & Nijhawan, R. (2006) Forward displacements of fading objects in motion: The role of transient signals in perceiving position. Vision Research 46(26):4375–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed