home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Illusion - Is Seeing Really Believing?
/
Illusion - Is Seeing Really Believing (1998)(Marshall Media)[Mac-PC].iso
/
mac
/
ILLUSION
/
SROCK_TX.CXT
/
00386_Text_rem07t.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1996-12-31
|
2KB
|
51 lines
Implicit in the sensory
theory of apparent motion is
the assumption that what
distinguishes apparent from
real motion is the extent of
separation between A and B on
the retina. But that assumption
may be incorrect. A and B are
separate from one another in
perceived space, whereas an
object in real motion is seen to
be located in a series of
adjacent positions in space. If
we track a really moving object,
we perceive it to be moving
even though its image remains
stationary on the retina.
Perhaps, then, an analogous
situation prevails in the case of
apparent motion. In an
experiment Sheldon Ebenholtz
and I performed some years ago,
observers had to synchronize
their eye movements with the
flashing on and off first of A
and then of B. As A appeared,
observers looked directly at it.
Thus the image of A fell in the
central region of the retina,
the fovea. As A disappeared,
observers rapidly shifted their
eyes to point B; just as the eyes
reached that position, B
flashed. It, too, then projected
onto the fovea. The observers
perceived apparent motion from
A to B. In this case, a simple
sensory explanation will not
suffice because only one region
of the retina was stimulated,
not two. A single retinal region
can represent two locations in
perceived space because the
direction of stimulation is
interpreted differently on the
basis of the two different
positions of the eyes. In that
respect, this experiment is
analogous to the one in which
we track a really moving object.