Abstract
Localization of the onset and offset of a moving target is subject to a number of errors that have to be attributed to events following or preceding the target event. Apparently, observers are unable to ignore the spatiotemporal context surrounding the target event. In two experiments, observers’ attention was directed toward a single position along a trajectory, two positions along a single trajectory, or two positions along two different trajectories. In the latter condition, attention to details of a single trajectory was reduced. At the same time, motion type was manipulated by varying the temporal interval between successive target presentations. The localization error was not affected by attentional load; however, effects of motion type were eliminated when two trajectories had to be attended to. It may be sufficient to notice that the target has moved for localization errors to occur, while specifics of the trajectory are ignored.
Article PDF
References
Freyd, J. J., &Finke, R. A. (1984). Representational momentum.Journal of Experimental Psychology,10, 126–132.
Freyd, J. J., &Johnson, J. Q. (1987). Probing the time course of representational momentum.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,13, 259–268.
Hayes, A. E., &Freyd, J. J. (2002). Representational momentum when attention is divided.Visual Cognition,9, 8–27.
Hubbard, T. L. (1995). Environmental invariants in the representation of motion: Implied dynamics and representational momentum, gravity, friction, and centripetal force.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 322–338.
Hubbard, T. L. (1996). Representational momentum, centripetal force, and curvilinear impetus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1049–1060.
Hubbard, T. L., &Motes, M. A. (2002). Does representational momentum reflect a distortion of the length or the endpoint of a trajectory?Cognition,82, B89-B99.
Kerzel, D. (2000). Eye movements and visible persistence explain the mislocalization of the final position of a moving target.Vision Research,40, 3703–3715.
Kerzel, D. (2002a). Different localization of motion onset with pointing and relative judgements.Experimental Brain Research,145, 340–350.
Kerzel, D. (2002b). Memory for the position of stationary objects: Disentangling foveal bias and memory averaging.Vision Research,42, 159–167.
Kerzel, D. (2003a). Attention maintains mental extrapolation of target position: Irrelevant distractors eliminate forward displacement after implied motion.Cognition,88, 109–131.
Kerzel, D. (2003b). Mental extrapolation of target position is strongest with weak motion signals and motor responses.Vision Research,43, 2623–2635.
Kirschfeld, K., &Kammer, T. (1999). The Fröhlich effect: A consequence of the interaction of visual focal attention and metacontrast.Vision Research,39, 3702–3709.
Kozhevnikov, M., &Hegarty, M. (2001). Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 439–453.
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.
Sheth, B. R., &Shimojo, S. (2001). Compression of space in visual memory.Vision Research,41, 329–341.
Thornton, I. M. (2002). The onset repulsion effect.Spatial Vision,15, 219–244.
van der Heijden, A. H., van der Geest, J. N., de Leeuw, F., Krikke, K., &Müsseler, J. (1999). Sources of position-perception error for small isolated targets.Psychological Research,62, 20–35.
Whitney, D., &Cavanagh, P. (2002). Surrounding motion affects the perceived locations of moving stimuli.Visual Cognition,9, 139–152.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG KE 825/3-1 and 825/4-1,2).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kerzel, D. Attentional load modulates mislocalization of moving stimuli, but does not eliminate the error. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 848–853 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196711
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196711