Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: October 2010

28 - Object updating: a force for perceptual continuity and scene stability in human vision

from Part V - Space–time and awareness

Summary

Summary

How does the visual system provide us with the perception of a continuous and stable world in the face of the spatial–temporal chaos that characterizes its input? In this chapter we summarize several programs of research that all point to a solution we refer to as object updating. We use this phrase because perceptual continuity seems to occur at an object level (as opposed to an image level or a higher conceptual level) and because our research suggests that the visual system makes a sharp distinction between the formation of new object representations versus the updating of existing object representations. We summarize the research that led us to this view in the areas of masking by object substitution, the flash-lag illusion, response priming, and an illusion of perceptual asynchrony.

Introduction

Biological vision is the marvelous ability of an organism to be informed about its surroundings at a distance and with a high degree of spatial and temporal resolution. This ability allows us to know where things are, what shape and color they are, and equally importantly, when they are there, so that we may interact with them appropriately. Yet, contrary to many people's implicit understanding of how biological vision is accomplished, it is not a process by which light, reflected from surfaces in the three-dimensional world, is recorded faithfully by the brain in order to reconstruct the nature of the surfaces that gave rise to the recorded pattern of light.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
References
Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: the psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. J Exp Psychol Gen 129: 481–507.
Eagleman, D. M., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness. Science 287: 2036–2038.
Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24: 1737–1747.
Enns, J. T. (2004). Object substitution and its relation to other forms of visual masking. Vision Res 44: 1321–1331.
Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (1997). Object substitution: a new form of masking in unattended visual locations. Psychol Sci 8: 135–139.
Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2000). What's new in visual masking? Trends Cogn Sci 4: 345–352.
Goodale, M., & Humphreys, G. K. (1998). The objects of action and perception. Cognition 67: 181–207.
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (2004). The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action. New York: Psychology Press.
Jiang, Y. H., & Chun, M. M. (2001). Asymmetric object substitution masking. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27(4): 895–918.
Klapp, S. T., & Hinkley, L. B. (2002). The negative compatibility effect: unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection. J Exp Psychol Gen 131: 255–269.
Krekelberg, B., & Lappe, M. (2000). A model of the perceived relative positions of moving objects based upon a slow averaging process. Vision Res 40: 201–215.
Lee, S. H., & Blake, R. (1999). Visual form created solely from temporal structure. Science 284: 1165–1168.
Lleras, A., & Enns, J. T. (2004). Negative compatibility or object updating? A cautionary tale of mask-dependent priming. J Exp Psychol Gen 133: 475–493.
Lleras, A., & Moore, C. M. (2003). When the target becomes the mask: using apparent motion to isolate the object-level component of object substitution masking. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29: 106–120.
MacKay, D. M. (1958). Perceptual stability of a stroboscopically lit visual field containing self-luminous objects. Nature 181: 507–508.
Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The Visual Brain in Action. London: Oxford University Press.
Moore, C. M., & Enns, J. T. (2004). Object updating and the flash-lag effect. Psychol Sci 15: 866–871.
Moore, C. M., & Lleras, A. (2005). On the role of object representations in substitution masking. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31: 1171–1180.
Moutoussis, K., & Zeki, S. (1997a). A direct demonstration of perceptual asynchrony in vision. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264: 393–399.
Moutoussis, K., & Zeki, S. (1997b). Functional segregation and temporal hierarchy of the visual perceptive systems. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264: 1407–1414.
Nijhawan, R. (1994). Motion extrapolation in catching. Nature 370: 256–257.
Nijhawan, R. (2002). Neural delays, visual motion and the flash-lag effect. Trends Cogn Sci 6: 387–393.
Oriet, C., & Enns, J. T. (under review). The perceptual asynchrony illusion: object updating and unbinding take time. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform.
Schlag, J., & Schlag-Rey, M. (2002). Through the eye, slowly: delays and localization errors in the visual system. Nat Rev Neurosci 3: 191–200.
Sekuler, A. B., & Bennett, P. J. (2001). Generalized common fate: grouping by common luminance changes. Psychol Sci 12: 437–444.
Tsotsos, J. (1990). Analyzing vision at the complexity level, Behav Brain Sci 13: 423–445.
Usher, M., & Donnelly, N. (1998). Visual synchrony affects binding and segmentation in perception. Nature 394: 179–182.
Vogel, E. K., Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2001). Storage of features, conjunctions, and objects in visual working memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27: 92–114.
Whitney, D. (2002). The influence of visual motion on perceived position. Trends Cogn Sci 6: 211–216.
Whitney, D., & Murakami, I. (1998). Latency difference, not spatial extrapolation. Nat Neurosci 1: 656–657.
Whitney, D., Murakami, I., & Cavanagh, P. (2000). Illusory spatial offset of a flash relative to a moving stimulus is caused by differential latencies for moving and flashed stimuli. Vision Res 40: 137–149.
Zeki, S., & Bartels, A. (1998). The asynchrony of consciousness. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 265: 1583–1585.