A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Judgments of synchrony between auditory and moving or still visual stimuli. | LitMetric

The flash-lag effect is a visual illusion wherein intermittently flashed, stationary stimuli seem to trail after a moving visual stimulus despite being flashed synchronously. We tested hypotheses that the flash-lag effect is due to spatial extrapolation, shortened perceptual lags, or accelerated acquisition of moving stimuli, all of which call for an earlier awareness of moving visual stimuli over stationary ones. Participants judged synchrony of a click either to a stationary flash of light or to a series of adjacent flashes that seemingly bounced off or bumped into the edge of the visual display. To be judged synchronous with a stationary flash, audio clicks had to be presented earlier--not later--than clicks that went with events, like a simulated bounce (Experiment 1) or crash (Experiments 2-4), of a moving visual target. Click synchrony to the initial appearance of a moving stimulus was no different than to a flash, but clicks had to be delayed by 30-40 ms to seem synchronous with the final (crash) positions (Experiment 2). The temporal difference was constant over a wide range of motion velocity (Experiment 3). Interrupting the apparent motion by omitting two illumination positions before the last one did not alter subjective synchrony, nor did their occlusion, so the shift in subjective synchrony seems not to be due to brightness contrast (Experiment 4). Click synchrony to the offset of a long duration stationary illumination was also delayed relative to its onset (Experiment 5). Visual stimuli in motion enter awareness no sooner than do stationary flashes, so motion extrapolation, latency difference, and motion acceleration cannot explain the flash-lag effect.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cjep2007028DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

moving visual
16
visual stimuli
12
stationary flash
8
click synchrony
8
subjective synchrony
8
visual
7
moving
6
stationary
6
stimuli
5
synchrony
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!