October 2020
Volume 20, Issue 11
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   October 2020
Causality and continuity close the gaps in event representation
Author Affiliations
  • Jonathan F. Kominsky
    Rutgers University - Newark
  • Lewis Baker
    Pymetrics, Inc.
  • Frank C. Keil
    Yale University
  • Brent Strickland
    Institut Jean Nicod, Ecole Normale Superieure
Journal of Vision October 2020, Vol.20, 247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.247
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Jonathan F. Kominsky, Lewis Baker, Frank C. Keil, Brent Strickland; Causality and continuity close the gaps in event representation. Journal of Vision 2020;20(11):247. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.247.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Imagine you see a video of someone pulling back their leg to kick a soccer ball, and then a soccer ball soaring towards a goal. You would likely infer that these scenes are two parts of the same event, and this inference would likely cause you to remember having seen the moment the person kicked the soccer ball, even if that information was never actually presented (Strickland & Keil, 2011). We tested whether the spontaneous formation of coherent event representations relies on semantic implication, or a more automatic object-tracking system. In Experiment 1 (N=90), participants were more likely to falsely reported seeing the moment of contact/release in unfamiliar computer-generated animations of novel launching or launching-by-expulsion events (M=68.3%, SD=27.0) than in animations in which the second half of the event was an unrelated “non-sequitur” outcome (M=31.7%, SD=31.4), p<.001. Experiment 2 (N=120) independently manipulated whether the object’s trajectory was visible following the cut, and whether there was an event that seemed to be caused by the object in the second half of the video. Results showed that visible object trajectory alone dictated the filling-in effect (visible: M=69.4%, SD=28.2; invisible: M=27.9%; SD=30.9), F(1,110)=55.29, p<.001, partial eta-sq=.334. Experiment 3 (N=200) used naturalistic videos, and independently manipulated whether the features of the object were changed at the cut (e.g., a dart becoming a balled-up piece of paper) and whether the cut placed the object “too far” along its trajectory, disrupting spatiotemporal continuity. We found that participants recognized that the feature change had occurred (77%), but nonetheless filled-in the moment of contact/release provided there was continuity (M=75.0%, SD=28.6), while continuity disruptions significantly diminished the filling-in effect (M=67.5%, SD=30.8), F(1,196)=6.21, p=.014, partial eta-sq=.031. Together, these findings indicate that the spontaneous formation of event representations is driven by object tracking systems that are primarily sensitive to spatiotemporal continuity.


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.