Literature DB >> 17997668

Bimodal sensory discrimination is finer than dual single modality discrimination.

Ansgar Koene1, Derek Arnold, Alan Johnston.   

Abstract

Here we show that discriminating between different signal modulation rates can be easier when stimuli are presented in two modalities (vision and audition) rather than just one. This was true even when the single modality signal was repeated. This facilitation did not require simultaneous presentations in both modalities and therefore cannot rely on sensory fusion. Signal detection threshold for bimodal signals and double single modality signals were found to be equivalent indicating that the double single modality signals were not intrinsically noisier. The lack of facilitation in double single modality conditions was not due to inaccessibility of the first sample because there is no performance difference when noise was added to either the first or second samples. We propose that the bimodal signal discrimination advantage arises from fluctuations in the magnitude of sensory noise over time and because observers select the most reliable modality on a trial by trial basis. Noise levels within repeated single modality trials are more likely to be similar than those within signals from different modalities. As a consequence, signal selection would be less effective in the former circumstances. Overall, our findings illustrate the advantage of using separate sensory channels to achieve reliable information processing.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17997668     DOI: 10.1167/7.11.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  7 in total

1.  Age-related changes in auditory and visual interactions in temporal rate perception.

Authors:  Cassandra J Brooks; Andrew J Anderson; Neil W Roach; Paul V McGraw; Allison M McKendrick
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Audiovisual time perception is spatially specific.

Authors:  James Heron; Neil W Roach; James V M Hanson; Paul V McGraw; David Whitaker
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Central-peripheral dichotomy: color-motion and luminance-motion binding show stronger top-down feedback in central vision.

Authors:  Keyan Bi; Yifei Zhang; Yan-Yu Zhang
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Audio-visual speech cue combination.

Authors:  Derek H Arnold; Morgan Tear; Ryan Schindel; Warrick Roseboom
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Brain deactivation in the outperformance in bimodal tasks: an FMRI study.

Authors:  Tzu-Ching Chiang; Keng-Chen Liang; Jyh-Horng Chen; Chao-Hsien Hsieh; Yun-An Huang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Suboptimal human multisensory cue combination.

Authors:  Derek H Arnold; Kirstie Petrie; Cailem Murray; Alan Johnston
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  Audiovisual Temporal Perception in Aging: The Role of Multisensory Integration and Age-Related Sensory Loss.

Authors:  Cassandra J Brooks; Yu Man Chan; Andrew J Anderson; Allison M McKendrick
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 3.169

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.