Abstract
The flash-lag effect is a visual misperception of a position of a flash relative to that of a moving object: Even when both are at the same position, the flash is reported to lag behind the moving object. In the present study, the flash-lag effect was investigated with eye-movement measurements: Subjects were required to saccade to either the flash or the moving object. The results showed that saccades to the flash were precise, whereas saccades to the moving object showed an offset in the direction of motion. A further experiment revealed that this offset in the saccades to the moving object was eliminated when the whole background flashed. This result indicates that saccadic offsets to the moving stimulus critically depend on the spatially distinctive flash in the vicinity of the moving object. The results are incompatible with current theoretical explanations of the flash-lag effect, such as the motion extrapolation account. We propose that allocentric coding of the position of the moving object could account for the flash-lag effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aglioti, S., DeSouza, J. F. X., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Current Biology, 5, 679–685.
Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2003). The “flash-lag” effect occurs in audition and cross-modally. Current Biology, 13, 59–63.
Arnold, D. H., Durant, S., & Johnston, A. (2003). Latency differences and the flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 43, 1829–1835.
Arrighi, R., Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2005). Neural latencies do not explain the auditory and audio-visual flash-lag effect. Vision Research, 45, 2917–2925.
Baldo, M. V. C., Kihara, A. H., & Namba, J. (2002). Evidence for an attentional component of the perceptual misalignment between moving and flashing stimuli. Perception, 31, 17–30.
Baldo, M. V. C., & Klein, S. A. (1995). Extrapolation or attention shift? Nature, 378, 565–566.
Bernardis, P., Knox, P., & Bruno, N. (2005). How does action resist visual illusion? Uncorrected oculomotor information does not account for accurate pointing in peripersonal space. Experimental Brain Research, 162, 133–144.
Berry, M. J., Brivanlou, I. H., Jordan, T. A., & Meister, M. (1999). Anticipation of moving stimuli by the retina. Nature, 398, 334–338.
Blohm, G., Missal, M., & Lefevre, P. (2003). Smooth anticipatory eye movements alter the memorized position of flashed targets. Journal of Vision, 3, 761–770.
Bridgeman, B., Kirch, M., & Sperling, A. (1981). Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 336–342.
Bruno, N. (2001). When does action resist visual illusions? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 379–382.
Carbone, E., & Pomplun, M. (2006). Motion perception caused by feedback connections: A neural model simulating the Fröhlich effect. Psychological Research, 71, 709–715.
Eagleman, D. M., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Latency difference versus postdiction: Response to Patel et al. Science, 290, 1051a.
Franz, V. H. (2001). Action does not resist visual illusions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 457–459.
Franz, V. H., Fahle, M., Bülthoff, H. H., & Gegenfurtner, K. (2001). Effects of visual illusions on grasping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 1124–1144.
Franz, V. H., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Bülthoff, H. H., & Fahle, M. (2000). Grasping visual illusions: No evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychological Science, 11, 20–25.
Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15, 20–25.
Hu, Y., & Goodale, M. A. (2000). Grasping after a delay shifts sizescaling from absolute to relative metrics. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 856–868.
Khurana, B., & Nijhawan, R. (1995). Extrapolation or attention shift: Reply to Baldo and Klein. Nature, 378, 565–566.
Khurana, B., Watanabe, K., & Nijhawan, R. (2000). The role of attention in motion extrapolation: Are moving objects “corrected” or flashed objects attentionally delayed? Perception, 29, 675–692.
Krekelberg, B. (2003). Sound and vision. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 277–279.
Krekelberg, B., & Lappe, M. (1998). Temporal recruitment along the trajectory of moving objects and the perception of position. Vision Research, 39, 2669–2679.
Krekelberg, B., & Lappe, M. (2000). The position of moving objects. Science, 289, 1107.
McCarley, J. S., Kramer, A. F., & DiGirolamo, G. J. (2003). Differential effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on reflexive and voluntary saccades. Journal of Vision, 3, 751–760.
Müsseler, J., & Aschersleben, G. (1998). Localizing the first position of a moving stimulus: The Fröhlich effect and an attention-shifting explanation. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 683–695.
Müsseler, J., & Neumann, O. (1992). Apparent distance reduction with moving stimuli (tandem effect): Evidence for an attentional-shifting model. Psychological Research, 54, 246–266.
Niemann, D., Nijhawan, R., Khurana, B., & Shimojo, S. (2006). Cyclopian flash-lag illusion. Vision Research, 46, 3909–3914.
Nijhawan, R. (1994). Motion extrapolation in catching. Nature, 370, 256–257.
Nijhawan, R. (1997). Visual decomposition of colour through motion extrapolation. Nature, 386, 66–69.
Nijhawan, R. (2001). The flash-lag phenomenon: Object motion and eye movements. Perception, 30, 263–282.
Nijhawan, R. (2008). Visual prediction: Psychophysics and neurophysiology of compensation for time delays. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 31, 179–239.
Nijhawan, R., & Kirschfeld, K. (2003). Analogous mechanisms compensate for neural delays in the sensory and the motor pathways: Evidence from motor flash-lag. Current Biology, 13, 749–753.
Patel, S. S., & Bedell, H. E. (2000). Flash-lag effect: Differential latency, not postdiction. Science, 290, 1051.
Priess, H. W., Becker, S. I., Ansorge, U., Carbone, E., & Scharlau, I. (2009). Is the flash-lag effect a spatial or a temporal illusion? Manuscript submitted for publication.
Purushothaman, G., Patel, S. S., Bedell, H. E., & Ogmen, H. (1998). Moving ahead through differential visual latency. Nature, 396, 424.
Schenk, T. (2006). An allocentric rather than perceptual deficit in patient D.F. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 1369–1370.
Schlag, J., Cai, R. H., Dorfman, A., Mohempour, A., & Schlag-Rey, M. (2000). Extrapolating movement without retinal motion. Nature, 403, 38–39.
van Zoest, W., Donk, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2004). The role of stimulus-driven and goal-driven control in saccadic visual selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 746–759.
Whitney, D., & Murakami, I. (1998). Latency difference, not spatial extrapolation. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 656–657.
Wong, E., & Mack, A. (1981). Saccadic programming and perceived location. Acta Psychologica, 48, 123–131.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The present research was supported by Grant SCHA 1515-1/1 to Ingrid Scharlau and U.A., and Grant AN393-1/1 to U.A., Holk Cruse, and Odmar Neumann, from the German Research Council (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), as well as by Grant D/05/54004 to U.A., from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Becker, S.I., Ansorge, U. & Turatto, M. Saccades reveal that allocentric coding of the moving object causes mislocalization in the flash-lag effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 1313–1324 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.6.1313
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.6.1313