↓ Skip to main content

The Flash-Lag, Fröhlich and Related Motion Illusions Are Natural Consequences of Discrete Sampling in the Visual System

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Flash-Lag, Fröhlich and Related Motion Illusions Are Natural Consequences of Discrete Sampling in the Visual System
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01227
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith A. Schneider

Abstract

The Fröhlich effect and flash-lag effect, in which moving objects appear advanced along their trajectories compared to their actual positions, have defied a simple and consistent explanation. Here, I show that these illusions can be understood as a natural consequence of temporal compression in the human visual system. Discrete sampling at some stage of sensory perception has long been considered, and if it were true, it would necessarily lead to these illusions of motion. I show that the discrete perception hypothesis, with a single free parameter, the perceptual moment or sampling rate, can quantitatively explain all of the scenarios of the Fröhlich and flash-lag effect. I interpret discrete perception as the implementation of data compression in the brain, and our conscious perception as the reconstruction of the compressed input.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Other 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 9 45%
Psychology 5 25%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,981,442
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,886
of 30,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,075
of 329,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#587
of 721 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,473 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 721 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.