June 2004
Volume 4, Issue 8
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2004
Target reacquisition strategies in multiple object tracking
Author Affiliations
  • David E. Fencsik
    Brigham & Women's Hospital, USA Harvard Medical School, USA
  • Todd S. Horowitz
    Brigham & Women's Hospital, USA Harvard Medical School, USA
  • Sarah B. Kliege
    Brigham & Women's Hospital, USA
  • Jeremy M. Wolf
    Brigham & Women's Hospital, USA Harvard Medical School, USA
Journal of Vision August 2004, Vol.4, 370. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/4.8.370
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      David E. Fencsik, Todd S. Horowitz, Sarah B. Kliege, Jeremy M. Wolf; Target reacquisition strategies in multiple object tracking. Journal of Vision 2004;4(8):370. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.8.370.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Observers in multi-element tracking experiments can successfully track a subset of randomly moving identical objects, even if all of the objects disappear for 300–400 ms (e.g., Alvarez, Wolfe, Horowitz, & Arsenio (VSS 01)). This interval is too long for apparent motion mechanisms to bridge the gap. How does the visual system reacquire the target objects when they reappear? Here we test two possible explanations: According to the location-matching account, the system stores the location of each target at the time of disappearance. After the gap, the object closest to each target's pre-gap location is identified as a target. According to the trajectory-matching account, the system stores the target trajectories at the time of disappearance and searches along each object's predicted trajectory after the gap. In the experiments reported here, observers tracked 5 out of 10 dark gray disks moving randomly on a light gray background for 5000 ms. At a random time during the tracking interval, all the objects disappeared for 300 ms, then reappeared at various distances from their pre-gap locations. In Experiment 1, all of the objects reappeared either at the point of disappearance (position 0) or at the location expected if each had continued moving at a constant velocity during the gap (position 1). Performance was superior at position 0, supporting a location-matching account. In Experiment 2, we added position −1, which was as far behind position 0 along the trajectory as position 1 was ahead. The location-matching account predicts that performance should be best at position 0 and equal for positions −1 and 1. Instead, we found that position −1 produced performance superior to position 1, and not significantly different from position 0. This result indicates that the visual system takes into account the history of an object's motion trajectory when reacquiring targets.

Fencsik, D. E., Horowitz, T. S., Kliege, S. B., Wolf, J. M.(2004). Target reacquisition strategies in multiple object tracking [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 4( 8): 370, 370a, http://journalofvision.org/4/8/370/, doi:10.1167/4.8.370. [CrossRef]
 Supported by NIH grant MH065576 to TSH.

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.