For frame-and-spot-induced linear motion, Humber and Sherrick report that induced motion of a nonfixated static spot reduces as its separation from a fixated static spot increases. The authors invoke sensory factors, but range effects may undermine this interpretation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HumberC. N.SherrickM. F. (1993) Induced visual motion: Effects of fixation and retinal position. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 19–27.
ParducciA. (1974) Contextual effect: A range-frequency analysis. In CarteretteC.FriedmanM. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 127–141.
4.
PostR. B. (1986) Induced motion considered as a visually induced oculogyral illusion. Perception, 15, 131–138.
5.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1981) Peripheral movement, induced movement and aftereffects of induced movementPerception, 10, 173–182.
6.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1988) Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 57–71.
7.
Reinhardt-RutlandA. H. (1991) Does intermittence in induced rotary movement have any explanatory significance?Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 579–582.
