Save
Email
Print
ShareScienceDaily (Oct. 17, 2007) — Humans may not be any more sensitive in detecting biological motion compared with nonbiological motion, concludes a study recently published in Journal of Vision, an online, free-access publication of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO).
Dr Eric Hiris of St. Mary's College of Maryland, (St Mary's City, MD, US) contends that although many papers on the subject begin with statements to the effect that humans are particularly sensitive in detecting point-light biological motion, little research has been performed that supports this.
Previous research in this area, according to Hiris, generally has failed to take into account form information in biological motion and/or has used masks that were less than optimal for biological motion.
Using point-light displays, Hiris's study, described in "Detection of biological and nonbiological motion," compared biological motion to nonbiological motion with and without an underlying form; equated the effectiveness of masks across displays; and presented targets of various sizes within a constant-sized mask area to determine if mask density predicted detection performance.
Hiris concludes that the resulting evidence does not show that humans are better able to detect biological motion if nonbiological motion contains an underlying form, and, in some cases, even if it does not.
"Do researchers sometimes state conclusions in ways that go beyond the data?" asks Hiris. "Specifically, what do researchers mean when they say we're 'highly sensitive' to some aspect of motion? These findings may highlight the need to be careful about how we couch our conclusions."
Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:
Other bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
more 
