Distinct mechanisms for the representation of moving and static objects

Kourtzi, Z; Nakayama, K

doi:10.1080/13506280143000421

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Distinct mechanisms for the representation of moving and static objects

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons84023

Kourtzi, Z
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Department Physiology of Cognitive Processes, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13506280143000421?needAccess=true
(Publisher version)

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Kourtzi, Z., & Nakayama, K. (2002). Distinct mechanisms for the representation of moving and static objects. Visual Cognition, 9(1-2), 248-264. doi:10.1080/13506280143000421.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-E29E-6

Abstract

The visual system has been suggested to integrate different views of an object in motion. We investigated differences in the way moving and static objects are represented by testing for priming effects to previously seen ("known") and novel object views. We showed priming effects for moving objects across image changes (e.g. mirror reversals, changes in size, and changes in polarity) but not over temporal delays. The opposite pattern of results was observed for objects presented statically; that is, static objects were primed over temporal delays but not across image changes. These results suggest that representations for moving objects (1) are updated continuously across image changes while static object representations generalize only across similar images and (2) they are more short-lived than static object representations. These results suggest two distinct representational mechanisms; a static object mechanism rather spatially refined and permanent, possibly suited for visual recognition and a motion-based object mechanism more temporary and less spatially refined, possibly suited for visual guidance of motor actions.