Literature DB >> 16115662

Neural latencies do not explain the auditory and audio-visual flash-lag effect.

Roberto Arrighi1, David Alais, David Burr.   

Abstract

A brief flash presented physically aligned with a moving stimulus is perceived to lag behind, a well studied phenomenon termed the Flash-Lag Effect (FLE). It has been recently shown that the FLE also occurs in audition, as well as cross-modally between vision and audition. The present study has two goals: to investigate the acoustic and cross-modal FLE using a random motion technique; and to investigate whether neural latencies may account for the FLE in general. The random motion technique revealed a strong cross-modal FLE for visual motion stimuli and auditory probes, but not for the other conditions. Visual and auditory latencies for stimulus appearance and for motion were measured with three techniques: integration, temporal alignment and reaction times. All three techniques showed that a brief static acoustic stimulus is perceived more rapidly than a brief static visual stimulus, while a sound source in motion is perceived more slowly than a comparable visual stimulus. While the results of these three techniques agreed closely with each other, they were exactly opposite that required to account for the FLE by neural latencies. We conclude that neural latencies do not, in general, explain the flash-lag effect. Rather, our data suggest that neural integration times are more important.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16115662     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.09.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  8 in total

1.  Synchronization with competing visual and auditory rhythms: bouncing ball meets metronome.

Authors:  Michael J Hove; John R Iversen; Allen Zhang; Bruno H Repp
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-05-26

2.  Perceived timing of first- and second-order changes in vision and hearing.

Authors:  Roberto Arrighi; David Alais; David Burr
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-09-29       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 3.  Minding time in an amodal representational space.

Authors:  Virginie van Wassenhove
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-07-12       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  The buzz-lag effect.

Authors:  Cristiano Cellini; Lisa Scocchia; Knut Drewing
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Preferential processing of tactile events under conditions of divided attention.

Authors:  James V M Hanson; David Whitaker; James Heron
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 1.837

6.  The haptic and the visual flash-lag effect and the role of flash characteristics.

Authors:  Knut Drewing; Elena Hitzel; Lisa Scocchia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Distinct mechanisms of temporal binding in generalized and cross-modal flash-lag effects.

Authors:  Ryusuke Hayashi; Ikuya Murakami
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Do the flash-lag effect and representational momentum involve similar extrapolations?

Authors:  Timothy L Hubbard
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-05-23
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.