For frame-and-spot-induced linear motion, Humber and Sherrick report that induced motion of a nonfixated static spot reduces as its separation from a fixated static spot increases. The authors invoke sensory factors, but range effects may undermine this interpretation.
References
1.
HumberC. N.SherrickM. F. (1993) Induced visual motion: Effects of fixation and retinal position. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 19–27.
ParducciA. (1974) Contextual effect: A range-frequency analysis. In CarteretteC.FriedmanM. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 127–141.
4.
PostR. B. (1986) Induced motion considered as a visually induced oculogyral illusion. Perception, 15, 131–138.
5.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1981) Peripheral movement, induced movement and aftereffects of induced movementPerception, 10, 173–182.
6.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1988) Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 57–71.
7.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1991) Does intermittence in induced rotary movement have any explanatory significance?Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 579–582.
