Abstract
This research was carried out with the aim of comparing rather simultaneous stimuli and proving that perceiving the temporal order is a vital part in the performance of tasks. However, it aimed to show the factors that lead to us being unable to make the right perception by the inclusion of irrelevant events in the visual field. It was conducted by recording the various readings that were collected from the behavioural index of the observers in the static distractor environments and in isolation.
This research was carried out by 9 psychology undergraduates from the University of Western Sydney who were required to think in varying environments. The readings that were taken were those that the subjects perceived first. During the experiments, participants were instructed to do temporal order judgments (TOJ). Various occurrences were shown through stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) while the subjects were seated some distance from the screen. They were required to identify the disk that changed the colour first. It was discovered that, the outcome determined a notable difference between the static condition due to the flickering of lights during the dynamic conditions, weakening the TOJs with a much substantial change in the This led to conclude that both dynamic context and static contexts developed higher JND across the vertical meridian in the contrary to the JNDs found across the horizontal meridians. The results dictated no notable differentiation. Nonetheless, results indicate a notable difference between the dynamic context and the horizontal and vertical meridian.
Temporal Resolution of the Visual System for Making Temporal Order Judgments
Introduction
Our visions are important determinants of what we are able to view and having this ability to view has been said to be a vital component when it comes to perception. So over the years researchers have tried to look into the issue of determining which factors have a hand when it comes to the temporal order judgments (Wada, 2003).
Research was carried out in 2003 by Wada Y(2003) with the aim of seeing how vision and touch related with the concentration of the subjects and it was noted that Results that shift of spatial attention yielded by visual cueing resulted in the modulation of accuracy of the subsequent tactile temporal order judgment. However, this cueing effect disappeared when participants judged simultaneity of the two stimuli, instead of their temporal order. (Wada, 2003). These reasons may be further inferred in this research since the readings were higher when the individuals had the chance to view the objects without the spatial objects in the line of vision.
The researches have gone ahead to prove that at times our perception is based on bias and this bias leads to the human brain making some perceptions which one may consider not to be substantive findings. As seen in the Aghdaee&Seyed Mehdi research (2013), the findings at first were said not to be conclusive due to the fact that the subjects being biased (Aghadee and Seyed, 2013) Further in the J Neurosci research (2009), aimed at showing exactly which part of the brain is tasked with the duty of determining an individual’s perception. They had the hypotheses that the presence of spatial properties in the visual environment would in turn reciprocate in difference in the readings(Neurosci J, 2009) They concluded that even though TOJ is a powerful tool for investigating perception, at times the individual’s point of subjective simultaneity may be a factor that will determine the findings in a research pertaining to an individual’s perception(Neurosci J, 2009).
Further in the Shulman research(2003), it was shown at times the subject doesn’t have power to determine whether or not he or she will view the object, this is referred to as involuntary control of attention and in cases that the spartial objects are in visual environment, at times the individual will be unable to control himself or herself from concentrating on the required object. This will in turn reciprocate in him or her giving out the wrong readings. (Shulman, 2007)
However, there are instances that these readings will not be affected and this is due to the stimulus activated activations, which will in most cases lead to the subject having a concentration on the desired object. This may be said not to be a substantive reason, since it can be said to be an example rather than a wholly substantive reason (Shulman, 2007)
The research was carried out to prove the following hypotheses,
1st - dynamic condition will produce greater JND than static condition
2nd - Vertical meridian would produce greater JND than horizontal meridian
3rd - static and dynamic condition would produce greater JND than vertical and horizontal meridian (interaction between context and meridian)
The results from the findings proved the hypotheses and they are discussed further below;
DISCUSSION
Summary of Results
The dynamic condition produced greater JND than static condition and this in turn proved the first hypothesis. This was shown by the subjects recording a higher JND in the dynamic condition as compared to the readings in the static condition.
The results were further able to prove that while on the vertical meridian, the readings were higher as compared to the readings on the horizontal meridian. This is visible by the increase in the readings from the various subjects in terms of the JND both in the dynamic and static conditions. This proved the second hypothesis.
Further, the static and dynamic conditions produced greater JND than vertical and horizontal meridian hence proving the third hypothesis. This was visible from thenotable differentiation.
Interpretation of Results
J Neurosci research(2009)
In his research in 2009, he was able to prove that the temporal order judgment is a vital component and factor when it comes to perception. From his findings, he was able to show that an individual’s brain at most times will have an already set perception in certain matters and the readings were able to show that this changes constantly when one varies the conditions in question(Neurosci J, 2009).. This is in line with the findings since, from the research, by the act of changing the variables, the subjects showed different findings.
Aghdaee and Seyed Mehdi Research(2013)
In his research in 2013, the research was carried out to prove the temporal processing rate in the visual system. They went ahead to look into the matter of the temporal judgment and concluded that the object of attention comes to consciousness quicker than the other objects in the visual surrounding (Aghadee and Seyed, 2013). This may be likened to the above research due to the subjects being required to locate the changing disks which were surrounded by the other distractor disks which may be said to be the other objects in the visual surrounding.
In order to prove the various factors involved in determining the factors that lead to the varying findings in the research, it was vital that the subjects be exposed to different environments with the aim of proving whether or not, they would be able to make the right judgments.
Ideas for the Future
For the future research activities, it would be best for the individuals to not only have the volunteers, but further to add a group of individuals who are forced to participate in the exercise. This will in turn lead to them having a varying mentality in their subjects and this will mean that the levels of biasness in the subjects may vary.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the research was able to prove that the presence of the distractors and the flickering lights led to the subjects being unable to make the rights judgment. These were in line with theory that, an individual’s brain at most times will have an already set perception in certain matters due to some of the subjects pressing a side before they had truly seen the direction from which the light came from. Lastly, this research showed that bias is a major derailing factor in researches and this will in turn lead to a subject being unable to ultimately make a right judgment in the situation at hand.
References
Aghdaee, Seyed Mehdi,2013. Temporal Processing in the Visual System.Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.[online] http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10433469 [last accessed 26th May 2016]
J Neurosci, 2013. Temporal Order Judgment Activate Temporal Junction, Society for Neuroscience, The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience. [online] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3862239 [last accesed 26th May 2016]
Shulman et al., Shulman GL, Astafiev SV, McAvoy MP, D'Avossa G, Corbetta M. Right TPJ(2007) deactivation during visual search: functional significance and support for a filter hypothesis. Cereb Cortex. 2625–2633 [online] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17264254 [last accessed 26th May 2016]
Wada Y(2003). Crossmodal attention between vision and touch in temporal order judgment task.ShinrigakuKenkyu. [online] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809233 [ last accessed 26th May 2016]
