Limits...
Disambiguating ambiguous motion perception: what are the cues?

Piedimonte A, Woods AJ, Chatterjee A - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: Participants were consistently biased by less AMB motion cues in the environment when reporting the AMB target direction.However, when participants learned a specific association about the target motion, this acquired endogenous knowledge countered exogenous motion cues in biasing participants' perception.Taken together, our findings demonstrate that we disambiguate AMB motion using different sources of exogenous and endogenous cues, and that learned associations may be particularly salient in countering the effects of environmental cues.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Turin Turin, Italy ; Department of Neurology, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA, USA.

ABSTRACT
Motion perception is a fundamental feature of the human visual system. As part of our daily life we often have to determine the direction of motion, even in ambiguous (AMB) situations. These situations force us to rely on exogenous cues, such as other environmental motion, and endogenous cues, such as our own actions, or previously learned experiences. In three experiments, we asked participants to report the direction of an AMB motion display, while manipulating exogenous and endogenous sources of information. Specifically, in all three experiments the exogenous information was represented by another motion cue while the endogenous cue was represented, respectively, by movement execution, movement planning, or a learned association about the motion display. Participants were consistently biased by less AMB motion cues in the environment when reporting the AMB target direction. In the absence of less AMB exogenous motion information, participants were biased by their motor movements and even the planning of such movements. However, when participants learned a specific association about the target motion, this acquired endogenous knowledge countered exogenous motion cues in biasing participants' perception. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that we disambiguate AMB motion using different sources of exogenous and endogenous cues, and that learned associations may be particularly salient in countering the effects of environmental cues.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Experiment 2 conditions. On the (Left), schematic representation of the two conditions: No-Planning and Planning. On the (Right), the display on the screen during the trials. CCW = counterclockwise (inner circle shift = -14°), AMB = Ambiguous (inner circle shift = +12°), CW = clockwise (inner circle shift = +14°). Note that the outer circle is always shifted by +12°.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4496557&req=5

Figure 5: Experiment 2 conditions. On the (Left), schematic representation of the two conditions: No-Planning and Planning. On the (Right), the display on the screen during the trials. CCW = counterclockwise (inner circle shift = -14°), AMB = Ambiguous (inner circle shift = +12°), CW = clockwise (inner circle shift = +14°). Note that the outer circle is always shifted by +12°.

Mentions: In the second experiment, we tested the hypothesis that a planned, but not executed, movement in a specific direction could bias participants’ perception. Indeed, motor planning can have the same perceived consequences as actual movements (Garbarini et al., 2012; Piedimonte et al., 2015) and can influence perception (Wohlschläger, 2000). We tested the hypothesis that the intention to move could also interfere with or facilitate exogenous directional cues. Thus, we replaced the execution of movement from Experiment 1 with the intention to do so, asking participants to not execute the hand movements but to plan them (see Figure 5).


Disambiguating ambiguous motion perception: what are the cues?

Piedimonte A, Woods AJ, Chatterjee A - Front Psychol (2015)

Experiment 2 conditions. On the (Left), schematic representation of the two conditions: No-Planning and Planning. On the (Right), the display on the screen during the trials. CCW = counterclockwise (inner circle shift = -14°), AMB = Ambiguous (inner circle shift = +12°), CW = clockwise (inner circle shift = +14°). Note that the outer circle is always shifted by +12°.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4496557&req=5

Figure 5: Experiment 2 conditions. On the (Left), schematic representation of the two conditions: No-Planning and Planning. On the (Right), the display on the screen during the trials. CCW = counterclockwise (inner circle shift = -14°), AMB = Ambiguous (inner circle shift = +12°), CW = clockwise (inner circle shift = +14°). Note that the outer circle is always shifted by +12°.
Mentions: In the second experiment, we tested the hypothesis that a planned, but not executed, movement in a specific direction could bias participants’ perception. Indeed, motor planning can have the same perceived consequences as actual movements (Garbarini et al., 2012; Piedimonte et al., 2015) and can influence perception (Wohlschläger, 2000). We tested the hypothesis that the intention to move could also interfere with or facilitate exogenous directional cues. Thus, we replaced the execution of movement from Experiment 1 with the intention to do so, asking participants to not execute the hand movements but to plan them (see Figure 5).

Bottom Line: Participants were consistently biased by less AMB motion cues in the environment when reporting the AMB target direction.However, when participants learned a specific association about the target motion, this acquired endogenous knowledge countered exogenous motion cues in biasing participants' perception.Taken together, our findings demonstrate that we disambiguate AMB motion using different sources of exogenous and endogenous cues, and that learned associations may be particularly salient in countering the effects of environmental cues.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Turin Turin, Italy ; Department of Neurology, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA, USA.

ABSTRACT
Motion perception is a fundamental feature of the human visual system. As part of our daily life we often have to determine the direction of motion, even in ambiguous (AMB) situations. These situations force us to rely on exogenous cues, such as other environmental motion, and endogenous cues, such as our own actions, or previously learned experiences. In three experiments, we asked participants to report the direction of an AMB motion display, while manipulating exogenous and endogenous sources of information. Specifically, in all three experiments the exogenous information was represented by another motion cue while the endogenous cue was represented, respectively, by movement execution, movement planning, or a learned association about the motion display. Participants were consistently biased by less AMB motion cues in the environment when reporting the AMB target direction. In the absence of less AMB exogenous motion information, participants were biased by their motor movements and even the planning of such movements. However, when participants learned a specific association about the target motion, this acquired endogenous knowledge countered exogenous motion cues in biasing participants' perception. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that we disambiguate AMB motion using different sources of exogenous and endogenous cues, and that learned associations may be particularly salient in countering the effects of environmental cues.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus