Literature DB >> 16672296

Combined auditory and visual stimuli facilitate head saccades in the barn owl (Tyto alba).

Elizabeth A Whitchurch1, Terry T Takahashi.   

Abstract

The barn owl naturally responds to an auditory or visual stimulus in its environment with a quick head turn toward the source. We measured these head saccades evoked by auditory, visual, and simultaneous, co-localized audiovisual stimuli to quantify multisensory interactions in the barn owl. Stimulus levels ranged from near to well above saccadic threshold. In accordance with previous human psychophysical findings, the owl's saccade reaction times (SRTs) and errors to unisensory stimuli were inversely related to stimulus strength. Auditory saccades characteristically had shorter reaction times but were less accurate than visual saccades. Audiovisual trials, over a large range of tested stimulus combinations, had auditory-like SRTs and visual-like errors, suggesting that barn owls are able to use both auditory and visual cues to produce saccades with the shortest possible SRT and greatest accuracy. These results support a model of sensory integration in which the faster modality initiates the saccade and the slower modality remains available to refine saccade trajectory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16672296     DOI: 10.1152/jn.00072.2006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  24 in total

1.  Interactions between stimulus-specific adaptation and visual auditory integration in the forebrain of the barn owl.

Authors:  Amit Reches; Shai Netser; Yoram Gutfreund
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 2.  How the owl tracks its prey--II.

Authors:  Terry T Takahashi
Journal:  J Exp Biol       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 3.312

3.  Why two "Distractors" are better than one: modeling the effect of non-target auditory and tactile stimuli on visual saccadic reaction time.

Authors:  Adele Diederich; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Multisensory integration shortens physiological response latencies.

Authors:  Benjamin A Rowland; Stephan Quessy; Terrence R Stanford; Barry E Stein
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-05-30       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Crossmodal interaction in saccadic reaction time: separating multisensory from warning effects in the time window of integration model.

Authors:  Adele Diederich; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Computing an optimal time window of audiovisual integration in focused attention tasks: illustrated by studies on effect of age and prior knowledge.

Authors:  Hans Colonius; Adele Diederich
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Target-approaching behavior of barn owls (Tyto alba): influence of sound frequency.

Authors:  Martin Singheiser; Dennis T T Plachta; Sandra Brill; Peter Bremen; Robert F van der Willigen; Hermann Wagner
Journal:  J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol       Date:  2010-02-07       Impact factor: 1.836

8.  Directing eye gaze enhances auditory spatial cue discrimination.

Authors:  Ross K Maddox; Dean A Pospisil; G Christopher Stecker; Adrian K C Lee
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Prior knowledge of spatiotemporal configuration facilitates crossmodal saccadic response : A TWIN analysis.

Authors:  Adele Diederich; Hans Colonius; Farid I Kandil
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  The optimal time window of visual-auditory integration: a reaction time analysis.

Authors:  Hans Colonius; Adele Diederich
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.