| Title |
A new look at Op art: towards a simple explanation of illusory motion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Science of Nature, March 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00114-004-0511-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Johannes M. Zanker, Robin Walker |
| Abstract |
Vivid motion illusions created by some Op art paintings are at the centre of a lively scientific debate about possible mechanisms that might underlie these phenomena. Here we review emerging evidence from a new approach that combines perceptual judgements of the illusion and observations of eye movements with simulations of the induced optic flow. This work suggests that the small involuntary saccades which participants make when viewing such Op art patterns would generate an incoherent distribution of motion signals that resemble the perceptual effects experienced by the observers. The combined experimental and computational evidence supports the view that the illusion is indeed caused by involuntary image displacements picked up by low-level motion detectors, and further suggests that coherent motion signals are crucial to perceive a stable world. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 5% |
| Germany | 3 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 25% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 8 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2008.
All research outputs
#2,236,216
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#290
of 2,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,183
of 66,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 66,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.