An Assignment Submitted by
Abstract
It is well research that visual performance is way effective within the horizontal compared to vertical meridian. The current research reveals the impact of horizontal and vertical meridian on temporal resolution that is particularly interested in detecting the phenomenon of Remote Temporal Camouflage (RTC). 9 participants recruited among psychology students participated in the study. The respondents were provided several tasks which they had to develop temporal order judgments (TOJs) in terms of which of the two stimuli emerged initially. The context was developed in both static and dynamic distractors. In the result, it was determined that JNDs were significantly greater along the vertical than horizontal meridians in dynamic contexts.
Introduction
General Statement
An individual can be behind the wheel of a usual automobile or inspecting sophisticated digital programs on the PC, which makes him or her making ongoing judgments about motion, timing, and visual representation by using a personal visual field. In this case, one of such kinds of visual judgment is called temporal order judgment (TOJs). These are objectives where a person has to determine what type of stimuli emerged first. TOJ tasks are particularly essential domain to explore in terms of its ability to process times of data in various modalities. Throughout the research, scholars have generated multiple inquiries on how temporal order decisions may be affected by stimuli characteristics.
At the same time, not a lot of researchers explored the effect of long-range contextual information on judgment of visual timing. However, Cass & Van der Burg (2014) managed to close this gap by utilizing TOJs that were evaluated by just noticeable differences (JNDs) in order to research temporal resolution. This phenomenon is the interval during which the visual field combines the perceived data together. The researchers explored the impact of distracter events on the phenomenon of temporal resolution by assessing JND in both static and dynamic domains, for instance still and flashing images (Cass & Van der Burg, 2014; Cass & Van der Burg, 2013).
It was revealed that when the static events were shown in isolation, temporal resolution was particularly concise; but in the case of dynamic distractor, performance has deteriorated (Cass & Van der Burg, 2014). It was also acknowledged that the effect has to be referred as Remote Temporal Camouflage (RTC) that functions within massive spatial and temporal distances as well as acquires a special spatial dissemination (Cass & Van der Burg, 2014). The results of the experiment conducted by the researchers implied that RTC is a aftermath of motion-related masking and dynamic visual distractors do not intervene with audio-visual TOJs (Cass & Van der Burg, 2014). With the help of this study, an innovative technique was developed that will assist the researchers in exploring temporal order performance that can be exclude motion-related sensory deposition.
Previous Research
As it was mentioned earlier, Cass & Van der Burg (2014) managed to create a unique experiment testing TOJ measured by JNDs, yet there were several studies related to this field of investigation. Hendrich et al. (2012) conducted an inquiry in the area of TOJ and the impact of choice reaction time (RT) task on it. It was claimed by the researchers that it has not yet been revealed when during making a solution about the temporal order of two stimuli is developed. Hendrich et al. (2012) compared a single TOJ task with a dual task related to TOJ by manipulating various processing steps in order to reveal if these manipulations affect TOJ as well as to detect the exact time of handling the solution about temporal order is created. According to the findings of the research, “the addition of a choice RT task does have an influence on the TOJ, but the influence seems to be linked to the kind of manipulation of the processing stages that is used” (Hendrich et al., 2012, p. 63). Overall, the study implies that the temporal order resolution in the dual task model is developed after perceptual handling of the impetus.
Another research conducted by Davis, Christie & Rorden (2009) and previous studies performed by Rutschmann (1966) and Wada (2003) investigated the perceptual temporal order judgments as well in order to detect what brain areas are involved with these tasks. The study shoed objects in static to the participants in order to reveal how individuals perceive the forms of the objects and timing of their emergence (Davis, Christie & Rorden, 2009). It was recognized that TOJs task demanded handling of brief occurrences while the shape exercise did not need temporal selectivity (Davis, Christie & Rorden, 2009). Overall, the research came to a conclusion that during the tasks, the left hemisphere of the brain was activated more (Davis, Christie & Rorden, 2009).
Aims
The aim of this study was to firstly replicate the earlier findings presented by Cass Van der Burg (2014) that contextual flicker interferes with temporal order judgments. Secondly, the research aims to determine whether there are differences in temporal resolution along horizontal and vertical visual meridians.
Hypothesis
The current research hypothesized that the flicker interferes with temporal order judgment performance to be poorer in the upper than lower visual fields.
Discussion
The present study managed to use the quantitative research design and involve 9 participants into the experiment. By using 2x2 factorial design and 244 trials, the researcher managed to attain the study objectives. It was noticed earlier that the main aim of the study is to follow the theoretical framework presented by Cass & Van der Burg (2014) and replicate their initial experiment. Their research produced unique findings and managed to recognize that individual’s precision for creating visual TOJs can be interfered by the simple existence of spatially and temporally outlying visual disorder. These findings revealed a novice contextual restraint on person’s ability to create consistency in temporal events (Cass & Van der Burg, 2014).
The current research produced the results claiming that there is a significant difference between the horizontal and vertical, as vertical appeared to be poorer than horizontal due to the fact that means average are greater for vertical than horizontal. Consequently, JND was in fact larger or higher per se. While the current experiment was slightly different comparing to that conducted by Cass & Van der Burg (2014), it is important to note that the results of the present inquiry cannot to be equaled to the findings generated by the researchers. The current experiment showed that there was a significance difference in terms of dynamic, while the objects presented in static did not generate significantly different results in both horizontal and vertical visual meridians (Table 1). At the same time, if comparing the difference between the static and dynamic, the current experiment revealed that there was a significant difference between them under the vertical condition (Table 1). Therefore, the experiment supported its hypothesis by implying that there are differences in temporal resolution along horizontal and vertical visual meridians, where the difference is greater in horizontal condition.
Cass & Van der Burg (2014) did not study the horizontal and vertical visual meridians, as their research was concentrated on the static and dynamic context. If compared the findings of the current research with the results produced by Cass & Van der Burg (2014), it is possible to claim that the present inquiry does not support the conclusions made by the previous research. Cass & Van der Burg (2014) claimed that “JNDs observed under static conditions were higher than those observed in dynamics”, while the current experiment revealed that JNDs under dynamic conditions were higher than under the static ones. While the previous study used both visual and audio-visual temporal order, the current research used only visual materials. Thus, it can be considered a difference as well as a minor limitation of the current research. As to limitations in general, the present inquiry involved a small sample, which may affect the external validity of the research as well as the ability to generalize the findings on the wider population. As the respondents were recruited solely among the students, it is possible to assume that the results may be different in the sample with other characteristics. Also, the study aimed to explore only the candidates with the normal visual perception.
References
Cass, J. & Van der Burg, J. (2013). Remote temporal camouflage: Contextual flicker disrupts perception of time’s arrow.
Cass, J. & Van der Burg, J. (2014). Remote temporal camouflage: Contextual flicker disrupts perceived visual temporal order. Vision Research, 103, 92–100.
Davis, B., Christie, J. & Rorden, C. (2009). Temporal Order Judgments Activate Temporal Parietal Junction. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(10), 3182-3188.
Hendrich, E., Strobach, T., Buss, M., Müller, H. J. & Schubert, T. (2012). Temporal-order judgment of visual and auditory stimuli: modulations in situations with and without stimulus discrimination. Frontier of Integrative Neuroscience, 25(6), 63-74.
Rutschmann, R. (1966). Perception of temporal order and relative visual latency. Science, 152, 1099–1101.
Wada Y. (2003). Crossmodal attention between vision and touch in temporal order judgment task. Shinrigaku Kenkyu, 74, 420–427.
