Perceived surface shape not features determines correspondence strength in apparent motion
References (29)
What determines correspondence strength in apparent motion?
Vision Research
(1986)- et al.
A theory of visual interpolation in object perception
Cognitive Psychology
(1991) - et al.
Perception of illusory occlusion in apparent motion
Vision Research
(1986) - et al.
A feature integration theory of attention
Cognitive Psychology
(1980) - et al.
Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion
Journal of the Optical Society of America
(1985) The perception of apparent movement
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B
(1980)Low level and high-level processes in apparent movement
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B
(1980)- et al.
Time, distance, and feature trade-offs in visual apparent motion
Psychological Review
(1981) - et al.
The problem of Consciousness
Scientific American, September
(1992) Probit analysis
(1971)
Visual apparent motion and the calculus of variations
The ecological approach to visual perception
(1979)
Surfaces vs. features in visual search
Nature, London
(1992)
Apparent motion determined by surface layout, not by disparity or 3-D distance
Nature, London
(1994)
Cited by (45)
Transformation and alignment in similarity
2009, CognitionInternal surface representations approximated by reverse correlation
2004, Vision ResearchMapping visual attention with change blindness: New directions for a new method
2004, Cognitive ScienceVisual working memory content influences correspondence processes.
2021, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and PerformanceIllusory size determines the perception of ambiguous apparent motion
2020, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
Copyright © 1994 Published by Elsevier Ltd.