Using a bistable apparent-motion display, Odic and Pratt (2008, Perception37 1790–1804) have recently presented data that they interpret as being inconsistent with what they call “the two-process theory”. Instead, they argue, their data can be explained by the differential-activation theory along with a process they identify as “temporal summation of contrast”. It is argued here that Odic and Pratt misinterpreted the two-process distinction and used a display that was too unusual to be adequately addressed by it. Further, their use of the differential-activation theory and, in particular, the temporal summation of contrast, seems problematic. It is concluded that there is little in their data and theoretical interpretation to justify rejection of the two-process approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BischofW Fdi LolloV, 1990“Perception of direction-sampled motion in relation to displacement and spatial frequency: Evidence for a unitary motion system”Vision Research301341–1362
2.
BraddickO JAdlardA, 1978“Apparent motion and the motion detector”, in Visual Psychophysics and Psychology Eds ArmingtonJ CKrauskopfJWootenB R (New York: Academic Press) pp 417–426
3.
CascoC, 1991“The relationship between visible persistence and event perception in bistable motion display”Perception19437–445
4.
CavanaghP, 1991“Short-range vs long-range motion: Not a valid distinction”Spatial Vision312109–2148
5.
CavanaghPMatherG, 1989“Motion: The long and short of it”Spatial Vision4103–129
6.
DawsonM R WNevin-MeadowsNWrightR D, 1994“Polarity matching in the Ternus configuration”Vision Research343347–3359
7.
GilroyL AHockH SPloegerA, 2001“Differential activation solution to the motion correspondence problem”Perception & Psychophysics63847–861
8.
KramerPRuddM, 1999“Visible persistence and form correspondence in Ternus apparent motion”Perception & Psychophysics61952–962
9.
OdicDPrattJ, 2008“Solving the correspondence problem within the Ternus display: The differential-activation theory”Perception371790–1804
10.
PantleA JPiccianoL, 1976“A multistable movement display: Evidence for two separate motion systems in human vision”Science193500–502
11.
PetersikJ T, 1989“The two-process distinction in apparent motion”Psychological Bulletin106107–127
12.
PetersikJ T, 1991“Comments on Cavanagh and Mather (1989): Coming up short (and long)”Spatial Vision5291–301
13.
PetersikJ T, 1994“Conceptualizations of short-range and long-range processes in apparent movement”Theory & Psychology4405–431
14.
PetersikJ TPantleA J, 1979“Factors controlling the competing sensations produced by a bistable stroboscopic motion display”Vision Research19143–154
15.
PetersikJ TPufahlRKrasnoffE, 1983“Failure to find an absolute retinal limit of a putative short-range process in apparent motion”Vision Research231663–1670
16.
PetersikJ TRiceC M, 2006“The evolution of explanations of a perceptual phenomenon: A case history using the Ternus effect”Perception35807–821
17.
PetersikJ TRiceC M, 2008“Spatial correspondence and relation correspondence: Grouping factors that influence perception of the Ternus display”Perception37725–739
18.
Scott-SamuelN EHessR F, 2001“What does the Ternus display tell us about motion processing in human vision?”Perception301179–1188
19.
TernusJ, 1926/1938“The problem of phenomenal identity”; English translation in A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology Ed. EllisW D (1938, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul)
20.
UllmanS, 1979The Interpretation of Visual Motion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)
