05.01.2013 Views

Perceptual Coherence : Hearing and Seeing

Perceptual Coherence : Hearing and Seeing

Perceptual Coherence : Hearing and Seeing

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

212 <strong>Perceptual</strong> <strong>Coherence</strong><br />

pointed out that the split is obligatory; the notes form two streams even if<br />

the listener is trying to hear the two tones together.<br />

In making judgments about apparent motion <strong>and</strong> auditory segregation,<br />

the auditory <strong>and</strong> visual perceptual systems metaphorically are asking<br />

whether the two stimuli could have come from the same object. For both<br />

systems, the expectation is that objects change slowly. Thus, if the interval<br />

between the two stimuli is relatively short, <strong>and</strong> yet the physical separation<br />

or frequency difference is large, the perceptual systems judge that the two<br />

stimuli come from different objects. Two lights are seen flashing alternately<br />

without connecting movement, <strong>and</strong> two tones are heard as coming from<br />

different sources.<br />

Auditory <strong>and</strong> Visual Hysteresis<br />

Hysteresis refers to the tendency to stick with the initial percept even as the<br />

stimulus changes greatly. The same effect found for apparent visual movement<br />

occurs for the alternating tone sequences used by van Noorden<br />

(1975). In some of the continuous tonal sequences, the frequencies of the<br />

two tones gradually became more different. Listeners heard a coherent sequence<br />

at frequency ratios that would normally result in two streams; conversely,<br />

if the frequencies of tones were gradually made more similar,<br />

listeners heard two streams at frequency ratios that would normally lead to<br />

a coherent sequence.<br />

Theories of Motion Perception<br />

Apparent Motion of Rigid Arrays<br />

Over the last 25 years, the consensus has been that there is no single motion<br />

detection system. Originally, the notion was that there were two systems.<br />

The first captured small quick movements of complicated patterns in one<br />

eye based on global matches, while the second captured longer slower<br />

movements of simple figures based on feature matches that could be integrated<br />

across the two eyes. 2 Although such a dichotomy has proven inadequate,<br />

the basic concept of two or more systems still seems sound. In what<br />

follows, I begin by discussing the types of experimental results that lead to<br />

the short/long motion distinction, <strong>and</strong> then discuss how this notion has<br />

evolved in the past 10 years.<br />

2. The term feature is used rather loosely. Features are defined by the context. Convex or<br />

concave would be a feature in a mixed set of figures, but not if all the figures were convex or<br />

concave.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!