Motion and position shifts induced by the double-drift stimulus are unaffected by attentional load.

The double-drift stimulus produces a strong shift in apparent motion direction that generates large errors of perceived position. In this study, we tested the effect of attentional load on the perceptual estimates of motion direction and position for double-drift stimuli. In each trial, four objects appeared, one in each quadrant of a large screen, and they moved upward or downward on an angled trajectory. The target object whose direction or position was to be judged was either cued with a small arrow prior to object motion (low attentional load condition) or cued after the objects stopped moving and disappeared (high attentional load condition). In Experiment 1, these objects appeared 10° from the central fixation, and participants reported the perceived direction of the target's trajectory after the stimulus disappeared by adjusting the direction of an arrow at the center of the response screen. In Experiment 2, the four double-drift objects could appear between 6 ° and 14° from the central fixation, and participants reported the location of the target object after its disappearance by moving the position of a small circle on the response screen. The errors in direction and position judgments showed little effect of the attentional manipulation-similar errors were seen in both experiments whether or not the participant knew which double-drift object would be tested. This suggests that orienting endogenous attention (i.e., by only attending to one object in the precued trials) does not interact with the strength of the motion or position shifts for the double-drift stimulus

Speed has an effect on multiple-object tracking independently of the number of close encounters between targets and distractors

Multiple-object tracking (MOT) studies have shown that tracking ability declines as object speed increases. However, this might be attributed solely to the increased number of times that target and distractor objects usually pass close to each other (“close encounters”) when speed is increased, resulting in more target–distractor confusions. The present study investigates whether speed itself affects MOT ability by using displays in which the number of close encounters is held constant across speeds. Observers viewed several pairs of disks, and each pair rotated about the pair’s midpoint and, also, about the center of the display at varying speeds. Results showed that even with the number of close encounters held constant across speeds, increased speed impairs tracking performance, and the effect of speed is greater when the number of targets to be tracked is large. Moreover, neither the effect of number of distractors nor the effect of target–distractor distance was dependent on speed, when speed was isolated from the typical concomitant increase in close encounters. These results imply that increased speed does not impair tracking solely by increasing close encounters. Rather, they support the view that speed affects MOT capacity by requiring more attentional resources to track at higher speeds

Bottlenecks of motion processing during a visual glance: the leaky flask model

YesWhere do the bottlenecks for information and attention lie when our visual system processes incoming stimuli? The human visual system encodes the incoming stimulus and transfers its contents into three major memory systems with increasing time scales, viz., sensory (or iconic) memory, visual short-term memory (VSTM), and long-term memory (LTM). It is commonly believed that the major bottleneck of information processing resides in VSTM. In contrast to this view, we show major bottlenecks for motion processing prior to VSTM. In the first experiment, we examined bottlenecks at the stimulus encoding stage through a partial-report technique by delivering the cue immediately at the end of the stimulus presentation. In the second experiment, we varied the cue delay to investigate sensory memory and VSTM. Performance decayed exponentially as a function of cue delay and we used the time-constant of the exponential-decay to demarcate sensory memory from VSTM. We then decomposed performance in terms of quality and quantity measures to analyze bottlenecks along these dimensions. In terms of the quality of information, two thirds to three quarters of the motion-processing bottleneck occurs in stimulus encoding rather than memory stages. In terms of the quantity of information, the motion-processing bottleneck is distributed, with the stimulus-encoding stage accounting for one third of the bottleneck. The bottleneck for the stimulus-encoding stage is dominated by the selection compared to the filtering function of attention. We also found that the filtering function of attention is operating mainly at the sensory memory stage in a specific manner, i.e., influencing only quantity and sparing quality. These results provide a novel and more complete understanding of information processing and storage bottlenecks for motion processing.Supported by R01 EY018165 and P30 EY007551 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Manipulating time and space: Collision prediction in peripersonal and extrapersonal space

Being able to predict potential collisions is a necessary survival prerequisite for all moving species. Temporal and spatial information is fundamental for this purpose. However, it is not clear yet if the peripersonal (i.e. near) and extrapersonal (i.e. far) distance between our body and the moving objects affects the way in which we can predict possible collisions. In order to assess this, we manipulated independently velocity and path of two balls moving one towards the other in such a way as to collide or not in peripersonal and extrapersonal space. In two experiments, participants had to judge if these balls were to collide or not. The results consistently showed a lower discrimination capacity and a more liberal tendency to predict collisions when the moving balls were in peripersonal space and their velocity was different rather than equal. This did not happen in extrapersonal space. Therefore, peripersonal space was particularly affected by temporal information. The possible link between the motor and anticipatory adaptive function of peripersonal space and collision prediction mechanisms is discussed