The Ternus display is a bistable apparent-motion display that has captivated researchers for decades. Recently, Odic and Pratt (2008, Perception37 1790–1804) provided evidence against the well-known two-process theory of Braddick and Adlard [1978, Visual Psychophysics and Physiology (New York: Academic Press) pp 417–426] and provided an explanatory framework using the differential-activation theory of Gilroy et al (2001, Perception & Psychophysics63 847–861). A comment by Petersik (this issue) challenges the methodology and theoretical implications of Odic and Pratt, and claims that the two-process distinction still has a role to play in the Ternus display. In this rejoinder, we examine the main points made by Petersik and expand on the differential-activation theory and its applicability to the Ternus display.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlaisDLorenceauJ, 2002“Perceptual grouping in the Ternus display: evidence for an ‘association field’ in apparent motion”Vision Research421005–1016
2.
BraddickO, 1974“A short range process in apparent motion”Vision Research14519–527
3.
BraddickOAdlardA, 1978“Apparent motion and the motion detector”, in Visual Psychophysics and Physiology: A Volume Dedicated to Lorrin Riggs Eds ArmingtonJ CKrauskopfJWootenB R (New York: Academic Press) pp 417–426
4.
CascoC, 1990“The relationship between visual persistence and event perception in bistable motion display”Perception19437–445
5.
CavanaghPMatherG, 1989“Motion: the long and short of it”Spatial Vision4103–129
6.
DawsonM R W, 1991“The how and why of what went where in apparent motion: modeling solutions to the motion correspondence problem”Psychological Review98569–603
7.
DawsonM R WNevin-MeadowsNWrightR D, 1994“Polarity matching in Ternus configuration”Vision Research343347–3359
8.
DoddM DMcAuleyTPrattJ, 2005“An illusion of 3-D motion with the Ternus display”Vision Research45969–973
9.
GilroyL AHockH S, 2004“Detection of counter-changing contrast: second-order apparent motion without postrectification motion-energy analysis or salience mapping/feature tracking”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance30137–150
10.
GilroyL AHockH SPloengerA, 2001“Differential activation solution to the motion correspondence problem”Perception & Psychophysics63847–861
11.
HockH SGilroyL AHarnettG, 2002“Counter-changing luminance: A non-Fourier, nonattentional bias for the perception of single-element apparent motion”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance2893–112
12.
HockH SKoganKEspinozaJ K, 1997a“Dynamic, state-dependent thresholds for the perception of single-element apparent motion: bistability from local cooperativity”Perception & Psychophysics591077–1088
13.
HockH SSchonerGGilroyL A, 2009“A counterchange mechanism for the perception of motion”Acta Psychologica1321–21
14.
HollingworthAFrancioneriS L, 2009“Object correspondence across brief occlusion is established on the basis of both spatiotemporal and surface feature cues”Cognition113150–166
15.
KramerPRuddM, 1999“Visible persistence and form correspondence in Ternus apparent motion”Perception & Psychophysics61952–962
16.
OdicDPrattJ, 2008“Solving the correspondence problem within the Ternus display: The differential-activation theory”Perception371790–1804
17.
PantleAPiccianoL, 1976“A multistable movement display: Evidence for two separate motion systems in human vision”Science193500–502
18.
PetersikT J, 1989“The two-process distinction in apparent motion”Psychological Bulletin106107–127
19.
PetersikT J, this issue “Ternus effect: Two processes or differential activation? Comments on Odic and Pratt's 2008 “paper”Perception this issue39705–710
20.
PetersikT JPantleA, 1979“Factors controlling the competing sensations produced by a bistable stroboscopic motion display”Vision Research19143–154
21.
Scott-SamuelN EHessR F, 2001“What does the Ternus display tell us about motion processing in human vision”Perception301179–1188
