This experiment dealt with the role of strobe frequency on the rod and frame effect in frame-dependent and frame-independent subjects in light of the destabilizing effect of strobe lighting on body posture. Analysis showed that the frame effect was resistant to strobe illumination and was significantly stronger at 2 Hz titan at 9 Hz. Since the stroboscopic effect was not related to the extent of the frame effect observed in normal light, there was no over-all dependence on the different components of the visual field (static and kinetic). Moreover, analysis of eye movements during stroboscopic exposure confirmed previous observation of a visual scanning style related to orienting activity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmblardB.CrémieuxJ. (1976) Rôle de l'information visuelle du mouvement dans le maintien de l'équilibre. Agressologie, 17, 25–37.
2.
AmblardB.CrémieuxJ.MarchandA. R.CarblancA. (1985) Lateral orientation and stabilization of human stance: static versus dynamic visual cues. Experimental Brain Research, 61, 21–37.
3.
BablerT. G.EbenholtzS. M. (1989) Effects of peripheral circular contours on dynamic spatial orientation. Perception and Psychophysics, 45, 307–314.
4.
CianC.EsquivieD.OhlmannT.RaphelC. (1993) Factors influencing postural stability: effects on features of eye movement in an orientation task. In Van RensbergenJ.DevijerM.d'YdewalleG. (Eds.), Perception and cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Pp. 83–91.
5.
DichgansJ.BrandtT. (1978) Visual-vestibular interaction: effects on self-motion perception and postural control. In HeldR.LeibowitzW.TeuberH. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sensory-physiology. New York: Springer Verlag. Pp. 755–804.
6.
EbenholtzS. M. (1977) Determinants of the rod and frame effect: the role of retinal size. Perception and Psychophysics, 22, 531–538.
7.
EbenholtzS. M. (1985a) Absence of relational determination in the rod and frame effect. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 303–306.
8.
EbenholtzS. M. (1985b) Blur-modulated orientation perception in the rod and frame task. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 109–113.
9.
EbenholtzS. M. (1990) Metamorphosis from rod and frame to visual-vestibular interaction. In RockI. (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: essays in cognition and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 233–242.
10.
EbenholtzS. M.BenzschawelT. L. (1977) The rod and frame effect and induced head tilt as a function of observation distance. Perception and Psychophysics, 22, 491–496.
11.
EbenholtzS. M.CallanJ. W. (1980) Modulation of the rod and frame effect: retinal angle vs apparent size. Psychological Research, 42, 327–334.
12.
HowardI. P.TempletonW. B. (1966) Human spatial orientation. New York: Wiley.
13.
LeibowitzH. W.PostR. B. (1982) The two modes of processing concept and some implications. In BeckJ. J. (Ed.), Organisation and representation in perception. New York: Erlbaum. Pp. 344–363.
14.
OltmanP. K. (1968) A portable rod and frame apparatus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26, 503–506.
15.
PaillardJ.AmblardB. (1985) Static versus kinetic cues for the processing of spatial relationship. In IngleD. J.JeannerodM.LeeD. N. (Eds.), Brain mechanisms and spatial vision. The Hague: Nijhoff. Pp. 299–330.
16.
SigmanE.GoodenoughD. R.FlannaganM. (1978) Subjective estimates of body tilt and rod-and-frame test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 1051–1056.
17.
WitkinH. A.AschS. E. (1948) Studies in space orientation: IV. Further experiments on perception of the upright with displaced visual fields. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 762–782.
18.
WitkinH. A.WapnerS. (1950) Visual factors in the maintenance of the upright posture. American Journal of Psychology, 63, 31–50.
