Cargando…

Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination

Motivated by recent findings of improved perceptual processing and perceptual-motor skill following stroboscopic vision training, the current study examined the performance and acquisition effects of stroboscopic vision methods that afford a different visual experience. In Experiment 1, we conducted...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bennett, Simon J., Hayes, Spencer J., Uji, Makoto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6068388/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30090080
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01290
_version_ 1783343259663204352
author Bennett, Simon J.
Hayes, Spencer J.
Uji, Makoto
author_facet Bennett, Simon J.
Hayes, Spencer J.
Uji, Makoto
author_sort Bennett, Simon J.
collection PubMed
description Motivated by recent findings of improved perceptual processing and perceptual-motor skill following stroboscopic vision training, the current study examined the performance and acquisition effects of stroboscopic vision methods that afford a different visual experience. In Experiment 1, we conducted a within-subject design study to examine performance of a multiple object tracking (MOT) task in different stroboscopic vision conditions (Nike Vapor Strobe(®), PLATO visual occlusion, and intermittent display presentation) operating at 5.6, 3.2, or 1.8 Hz. We found that participants maintained MOT performance in the Vapor Strobe condition irrespective of strobe rate. However, MOT performance deteriorated as strobe rate was reduced in the other two stroboscopic vision conditions. Moreover, at the lowest strobe rate (1.8 Hz) there was an increase in probe reaction time, thus indicating an increased attentional demand due to the stroboscopic vision. In Experiment 2, we conducted a mixed design study to examine if practice in different stroboscopic vision conditions (Nike Vapor Strobe(®) and PLATO visual occlusion) influenced acquisition of a novel precision-aiming task [i.e., multiple object avoidance (MOA) task] compared to a normal vision group. Participants in the PLATO visual occlusion group exhibited worse performance during practice than the Vapor Strobe and normal vision groups. At post-test, the Vapor Strobe group demonstrated greater success and reduced end-point error than the normal vision and PLATO groups. We interpret these findings as showing that both an intermittent perturbation (Nike Vapor Strobe(®)) and elimination (PLATO visual occlusion and intermittent display presentation) of visual motion and form are more attention demanding (Experiment 1), however, the intermittent perturbation, but not elimination, of visual motion and form can facilitate acquisition of perceptual-motor skill (Experiment 2) in situations where it is necessary to maintain and update a spatio-temporal representation of multiple moving objects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6068388
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60683882018-08-08 Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination Bennett, Simon J. Hayes, Spencer J. Uji, Makoto Front Psychol Psychology Motivated by recent findings of improved perceptual processing and perceptual-motor skill following stroboscopic vision training, the current study examined the performance and acquisition effects of stroboscopic vision methods that afford a different visual experience. In Experiment 1, we conducted a within-subject design study to examine performance of a multiple object tracking (MOT) task in different stroboscopic vision conditions (Nike Vapor Strobe(®), PLATO visual occlusion, and intermittent display presentation) operating at 5.6, 3.2, or 1.8 Hz. We found that participants maintained MOT performance in the Vapor Strobe condition irrespective of strobe rate. However, MOT performance deteriorated as strobe rate was reduced in the other two stroboscopic vision conditions. Moreover, at the lowest strobe rate (1.8 Hz) there was an increase in probe reaction time, thus indicating an increased attentional demand due to the stroboscopic vision. In Experiment 2, we conducted a mixed design study to examine if practice in different stroboscopic vision conditions (Nike Vapor Strobe(®) and PLATO visual occlusion) influenced acquisition of a novel precision-aiming task [i.e., multiple object avoidance (MOA) task] compared to a normal vision group. Participants in the PLATO visual occlusion group exhibited worse performance during practice than the Vapor Strobe and normal vision groups. At post-test, the Vapor Strobe group demonstrated greater success and reduced end-point error than the normal vision and PLATO groups. We interpret these findings as showing that both an intermittent perturbation (Nike Vapor Strobe(®)) and elimination (PLATO visual occlusion and intermittent display presentation) of visual motion and form are more attention demanding (Experiment 1), however, the intermittent perturbation, but not elimination, of visual motion and form can facilitate acquisition of perceptual-motor skill (Experiment 2) in situations where it is necessary to maintain and update a spatio-temporal representation of multiple moving objects. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-07-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6068388/ /pubmed/30090080 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01290 Text en Copyright © 2018 Bennett, Hayes and Uji. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Bennett, Simon J.
Hayes, Spencer J.
Uji, Makoto
Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination
title Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination
title_full Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination
title_fullStr Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination
title_full_unstemmed Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination
title_short Stroboscopic Vision When Interacting With Multiple Moving Objects: Perturbation Is Not the Same as Elimination
title_sort stroboscopic vision when interacting with multiple moving objects: perturbation is not the same as elimination
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6068388/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30090080
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01290
work_keys_str_mv AT bennettsimonj stroboscopicvisionwheninteractingwithmultiplemovingobjectsperturbationisnotthesameaselimination
AT hayesspencerj stroboscopicvisionwheninteractingwithmultiplemovingobjectsperturbationisnotthesameaselimination
AT ujimakoto stroboscopicvisionwheninteractingwithmultiplemovingobjectsperturbationisnotthesameaselimination