Back

Predictive visual uncertainty around moving trajectories influences causality judgments in launching displays

Eicke-Kanani, L.; Tatai, F.; Rosenberger, L.; Schmitter, C.; Straube, B.; Wallis, T. S.

2026-02-09 animal behavior and cognition
10.64898/2026.02.06.704483 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Michottes "launching displays" are animations of collision-like interactions between two objects that elicit a stable and robust impression that one object, the launcher, caused another object, the target, to move. Although it is well-known that unexpected disruptions of movement continuation between launcher and target decrease causal impressions in centre-to-centre collisions, the role of observers visual uncertainty around predicted moving trajectories remains relatively unexplored. In this work, we (1) assess observers uncertainty around post-collision moving angles in a trajectory prediction task and (2) collect their causal impression in a causality rating task. In the latter task, observers viewed centre-to-centre collisions with different levels of movement continuity between the launcher and the target disc. By presenting different launch orientations, we exploited the well-known oblique effect to vary trajectory prediction uncertainty within individuals. If observers rely on their trajectory predictions to rate the causality of the collision, we expect their accuracy in (1) to have a systematic influence on their causality rating in (2). We replicate previous findings that observers report stronger causal impressions in trials where the target and the launcher move in the same direction and weaker causal impressions for collisions where the target and the launcher moving trajectory deviated. Furthermore, causality ratings were on average higher for oblique compared to cardinal launch directions, implying that increased sensory uncertainty induces a stronger causal impression. We hope this work will inspire deeper empirical assessments and computational models describing the role of sensory uncertainty and predictive processes in shaping subjective impressions of causality.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Vision
92 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
32.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.3%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 10%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.4%
5
Behavior Research Methods
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
6
Consciousness and Cognition
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
7
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
8
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.4%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
10
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
11
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
12
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
13
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
14
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
16
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
17
Vision Research
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
18
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
19
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 43%
0.8%
21
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 58%
0.7%
22
Human Movement Science
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
23
Experimental Brain Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
24
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.6%