Eye movements induced by lateral acceleration steps Effect of visual context and acceleration levels

1997 ◽  
Vol 114 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. C. Gianna ◽  
Michael A. Gresty ◽  
Adolfo M. Bronstein
1995 ◽  
Vol 115 (sup520) ◽  
pp. 65-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire C. Gianna ◽  
Michael A. Gresty ◽  
Adolfo M. Bronstein

Cognition ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pia Knoeferle ◽  
Matthew W. Crocker ◽  
Christoph Scheepers ◽  
Martin J. Pickering

2017 ◽  
Vol 118 (1) ◽  
pp. 404-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipp Kreyenmeier ◽  
Jolande Fooken ◽  
Miriam Spering

In our natural environment, we interact with moving objects that are surrounded by richly textured, dynamic visual contexts. Yet most laboratory studies on vision and movement show visual objects in front of uniform gray backgrounds. Context effects on eye movements have been widely studied, but it is less well known how visual contexts affect hand movements. Here we ask whether eye and hand movements integrate motion signals from target and context similarly or differently, and whether context effects on eye and hand change over time. We developed a track-intercept task requiring participants to track the initial launch of a moving object (“ball”) with smooth pursuit eye movements. The ball disappeared after a brief presentation, and participants had to intercept it in a designated “hit zone.” In two experiments ( n = 18 human observers each), the ball was shown in front of a uniform or a textured background that either was stationary or moved along with the target. Eye and hand movement latencies and speeds were similarly affected by the visual context, but eye and hand interception (eye position at time of interception, and hand interception timing error) did not differ significantly between context conditions. Eye and hand interception timing errors were strongly correlated on a trial-by-trial basis across all context conditions, highlighting the close relation between these responses in manual interception tasks. Our results indicate that visual contexts similarly affect eye and hand movements but that these effects may be short-lasting, affecting movement trajectories more than movement end points. NEW & NOTEWORTHY In a novel track-intercept paradigm, human observers tracked a briefly shown object moving across a textured, dynamic context and intercepted it with their finger after it had disappeared. Context motion significantly affected eye and hand movement latency and speed, but not interception accuracy; eye and hand position at interception were correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. Visual context effects may be short-lasting, affecting movement trajectories more than movement end points.


2007 ◽  
Vol 97 (2) ◽  
pp. 1353-1367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Spering ◽  
Karl R. Gegenfurtner

Segregating a moving object from its visual context is particularly relevant for the control of smooth-pursuit eye movements. We examined the interaction between a moving object and a stationary or moving visual context to determine the role of the context motion signal in driving pursuit. Eye movements were recorded from human observers to a medium-contrast Gaussian dot that moved horizontally at constant velocity. A peripheral context consisted of two vertically oriented sinusoidal gratings, one above and one below the stimulus trajectory, that were either stationary or drifted into the same or opposite direction as that of the target at different velocities. We found that a stationary context impaired pursuit acceleration and velocity and prolonged pursuit latency. A drifting context enhanced pursuit performance, irrespective of its motion direction. This effect was modulated by context contrast and orientation. When a context was briefly perturbed to move faster or slower eye velocity changed accordingly, but only when the context was drifting along with the target. Perturbing a context into the direction orthogonal to target motion evoked a deviation of the eye opposite to the perturbation direction. We therefore provide evidence for the use of absolute and relative motion cues, or motion assimilation and motion contrast, for the control of smooth-pursuit eye movements.


2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina A Sekerina ◽  
Antje Sauermann

It is well established in language acquisition research that monolingual children and adult second language learners misinterpret sentences with the universal quantifier every and make quantifier-spreading errors that are attributed to a preference for a match in number between two sets of objects. The present Visual World eye-tracking study tested bilingual heritage Russian–English adults and investigated how they interpret of sentences like Every alligator lies in a bathtub in both languages. Participants performed a sentence–picture verification task while their eye movements were recorded. Pictures showed three pairs of alligators in bathtubs and two extra objects: elephants (Control condition), bathtubs (Overexhaustive condition), or alligators (Underexhaustive condition). Monolingual adults performed at ceiling in all conditions. Heritage language (HL) adults made 20% q-spreading errors, but only in the Overexhaustive condition, and when they made an error they spent more time looking at the two extra bathtubs during the Verb region. We attribute q-spreading in HL speakers to cognitive overload caused by the necessity to integrate conflicting sources of information, i.e. the spoken sentences in their weaker, heritage, language and attention-demanding visual context, that differed with respect to referential salience.


2000 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 1061-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Rayner ◽  
Gretchen Kambe ◽  
Susan A. Duffy

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolf Groner ◽  
Marina T. Groner ◽  
Kazuo Koga

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document