Email to Steffen Werner, October 10, 2006
Is a sense of time—as opposed to a sense of duration*—primarily generated from self-motion of the viewer through an environment rather than motion that takes place apart from the viewer?
*Need working definition of “sense of time” vs. “sense of duration”:
Duration = how long something takes?
Time = sequential ordering of events?
To test this idea we need to be able to separate self-motion from motion that takes place within the viewer’s environment. Following your suggestion, one way would be to introduce a temporal ambiguity between the two and then measure which type of movement was more potent in eliciting a sense of “before” or “after” from the viewer.
Based on my understanding of the literature summarized below, this seems feasible. From those studies I notice at least 3 main variables that could be manipulated but there may be other, more nuanced variables, that I have overlooked. I would appreciate your insight on this.
1. Temporal trajectories: Faster vs. slower
2. Rigidity: Perspective transformations vs. non-perspective cues
3. Motion type: Cues from motion within the environment vs. self-motion
Johansson (1986): Optic flow and vector analysis.
Giachritsis & Harris (2000) — one of many studies indicating that:
Schrater, Knill, & Simoncelli (2001)
Bertin & Israël (2005)
Domini, Caudek, & Skirko (2003)
Entire abstract: (Could use your help with this one.)
Future movement extrapolation (caused by 100 ms latency between proximal stimulus and percept) can explain various illusions, namely that observers most familiar with a “carpentered world” routinely:
In all of my ePortfolio work I talk about using the blog as an engine for collecting evidence and tagging that evidence so that during the selection process it is easy to filter. But I never follow my own advice. So as of today (1/15/13) I am going to begin dumping things in here and see if I can train myself to get in the habit of posting something at least once a week.