Summary
It is proposed that apparent motion does not parallel real motion. Bather, apparent motion occurs when the off-period is equivalent to angular velocities at which an object in real motion appears blurred. Experimental evidence is reported which supports this view. It suggests that apparent motion serves biologically to extend the range of motion perception beyond that allowed by time-constants early in the visual system.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature
Brown, J.F.: The visual perception of velocity. Psychol. Forsch. 14, 249–268 (1931).
Graham, C.H.: Vision and visual perception. New York: Wiley 1966.
Koffka, K.: Principles of gestalt psychology (Harcourt Brace, 1935), p. 287. J.F. Schouten, in: Models for the perception of speech and visual form (W. Wathen-Dunn, ed.), p. 44–56. MIT Press 1967.
Kolers, P.A.: Some differences between real and apparent visual movement. Vision Res. 3, 191–206 (1963).
Michotte, A.: La perception de la Causalite. Louvain, Institut Superieur de Philosophie 1946.
Rock, I., Ebenholtz, S.: Stroboscopic movement based on change of phenomenal rather than retinal location. Amer. J. Psychol. 75, 193–207 (1962).
Smith, W.M., Gulick, W.L.: Dynamic contour perception. J. exp. Psychol. 53, 145–152 (1957).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaufman, L., Cyrulnik, I., Kaplowitz, J. et al. The complementarity of apparent and real motion. Psychol. Forsch. 34, 343–348 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00424732
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00424732