Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

A continuously lit stimulus is perceived to be shorter than a flickering stimulus during a saccade

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Spatial Vision
For more content, see Multisensory Research and Seeing and Perceiving.

When subjects made a saccade across a single-flashed dot, a flickering dot or a continuous dot, they perceived a dot, an array (phantom array), or a line (phantom line), respectively. We asked subjects to localize both endpoints of the phantom array or line and calculated the perceived lengths. Based on the findings of Matsumiya and Uchikawa (2001), we predicted that the apparent length of the phantom line would be larger than that of the phantom array. In Experiment 1 of the current study, contrary to the prediction, the phantom line was found to be shorter than the phantom array. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether the function underlying the filled-unfilled space illusion (Lewis, 1912) instead of the function underlying the saccadic compression could explain the results. Subjects were asked to localize both endpoints of a line or an array while keeping their eyes fixated. Although the results of Experiment 2 showed that the perceived length of a line was shorter than that of an array, the function underlying the filled-unfilled illusion could not fully account for the results of Experiment 1. To explain the present results, we proposed a model for the localization process and discussed its validity.

10.1163/1568568054089384
/content/journals/10.1163/1568568054089384
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/1568568054089384
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/1568568054089384
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/1568568054089384
2005-07-01
2016-12-08

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Spatial Vision — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation