Apparent Displacement of Moving and Stationary Strobe Flashes

Abstract

If an observer fixates a stationary object near the flight path of an airplane carrying a strobe flash, then the flash appears to trail behind the image of the airplane. In parallactic motion a strobe flash on a stationary tower appears to lag behind the apparently moving image of the tower. Considering the relationship between the latency and intensity of visual stimuli, those displacements seem paradoxical. If the latency of a bright flash is shorter than the latency of other image elements, then a flash should appear to precede the other elements of a moving image. However, the visual persistence of a stimulus is inversely related to its duration. Thus, the apparent displacement of a flash is due to its longer persistence in relation to the continuously lighted portions of a moving image. Under some conditions, the apparent displacement of a strobe flash may have important practical consequences.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allport, D. A. Temporal summation and phenomenal simultaneity: Experiments with the radius display. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 22, 686–701.

Alpern, M. Relation of visual latency to intensity. Archives of Ophthalmology, 1954, 51, 369–374.

Bowen, R. W. , Pola, J. , and Matin, L. Visual persistence: Effects of flash luminance, duration, and energy. Vision Research, 1974, 14, 295–303.

Coltheart, M. Iconic memory and visual persistence. Perception & Psychophysics, 1980, 27, 183–228.

Gibson, J. J. The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1950.

Haber, R. N. , and Standing, L. G. Direct estimates of the apparent duration of a flash. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1970, 24, 216–229.

Helmholtz, H. Physiological optics. New York: Dover, 1962 (originally published 186611925).

Lit, A. The magnitude of the Pulfrich stereophenomenon as a function of binocular differences of intensity at various levels of illumination. American Journal of Psychology, 1949, 62, 159–181.

MacKay, D. M. Perceptual stability of a stroboscopically lit visual field containing self-luminous objects. Nature, 1958, 181, 507–508.

10.

Morgan, M. J. Differential visual persistence between the two eyes: A model for the Fertsch-Pulfrich effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977, 3, 484–495.

11.

Parker, D. E. , Woods, D. L. , and Tubbs, R. L. Illusory displacement of a moving trace with respect to the grid during oscilloscope motion. Perception & Psychophysics, 1977, 21, 439–444.

12.

Pease, V. P. , and Sticht, T. G. Reaction time as a function of onset and offset stimulation of the fovea and periphery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 20, 549–554.

13.

Prestrude, A. M. , and Baker, H. D. New method of measuring visual-perceptual latency differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 152–154.

14.

Pulfrich, C. Die Stereoskopie im Dienste der isochromen und heterochromen Photometrie. Die Naturwissenschaften, 1922, 10, 553–564.

15.

Starr, A. , Angel, R. , and Yeates, H. Visual suppression during smooth following and saccadic eye movements. Vision Research, 1969, 9, 195–197.

16.

Walker, J. T. Slant perception and binocular brightness differences: Some effects of viewing apparent and objective surface slants. Perception & Psychophysics, 1976, 20, 395–402.