Literature DB >> 20089821

Bayesian and "anti-Bayesian" biases in sensory integration for action and perception in the size-weight illusion.

Jordan B Brayanov1, Maurice A Smith.   

Abstract

Which is heavier: a pound of lead or a pound of feathers? This classic trick question belies a simple but surprising truth: when lifted, the pound of lead feels heavier--a phenomenon known as the size-weight illusion. To estimate the weight of an object, our CNS combines two imperfect sources of information: a prior expectation, based on the object's appearance, and direct sensory information from lifting it. Bayes' theorem (or Bayes' law) defines the statistically optimal way to combine multiple information sources for maximally accurate estimation. Here we asked whether the mechanisms for combining these information sources produce statistically optimal weight estimates for both perceptions and actions. We first studied the ability of subjects to hold one hand steady when the other removed an object from it, under conditions in which sensory information about the object's weight sometimes conflicted with prior expectations based on its size. Since the ability to steady the supporting hand depends on the generation of a motor command that accounts for lift timing and object weight, hand motion can be used to gauge biases in weight estimation by the motor system. We found that these motor system weight estimates reflected the integration of prior expectations with real-time proprioceptive information in a Bayesian, statistically optimal fashion that discounted unexpected sensory information. This produces a motor size-weight illusion that consistently biases weight estimates toward prior expectations. In contrast, when subjects compared the weights of two objects, their perceptions defied Bayes' law, exaggerating the value of unexpected sensory information. This produces a perceptual size-weight illusion that biases weight perceptions away from prior expectations. We term this effect "anti-Bayesian" because the bias is opposite that seen in Bayesian integration. Our findings suggest that two fundamentally different strategies for the integration of prior expectations with sensory information coexist in the nervous system for weight estimation.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20089821      PMCID: PMC4422348          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00814.2009

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


  81 in total

1.  The exploitation of regularities in the environment by the brain.

Authors:  H Barlow
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 12.579

2.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  Konrad P Körding; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-01-15       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Neural activity in primary motor and dorsal premotor cortex in reaching tasks with the contralateral versus ipsilateral arm.

Authors:  Paul Cisek; Donald J Crammond; John F Kalaska
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Two eyes for an eye: the neuroscience of force escalation.

Authors:  Sukhwinder S Shergill; Paul M Bays; Chris D Frith; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-07-11       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Bayesian inference explains perception of unity and ventriloquism aftereffect: identification of common sources of audiovisual stimuli.

Authors:  Yoshiyuki Sato; Taro Toyoizumi; Kazuyuki Aihara
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.026

6.  Grasping Weber's law.

Authors:  Jeroen B J Smeets; Eli Brenner
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 10.834

7.  The golf-ball illusion: evidence for top-down processing in weight perception.

Authors:  R R Ellis; S J Lederman
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 1.490

8.  Preliminary observations on tickling oneself.

Authors:  L Weiskrantz; J Elliott; C Darlington
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1971-04-30       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  The tilt after-effect: a fresh look.

Authors:  F W Campbell; L Maffei
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1971-08       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Postural and kinetic coordination following cortical stimuli which induce flexion movements in the cat's limbs.

Authors:  Y Gahéry; A Nieoullon
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1978-06-23       Impact factor: 3.252

View more
  32 in total

1.  Recognition confidence under violated and confirmed memory expectations.

Authors:  Antonio Jaeger; Justin C Cox; Ian G Dobbins
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2011-10-03

2.  A Bayesian observer model constrained by efficient coding can explain 'anti-Bayesian' percepts.

Authors:  Xue-Xin Wei; Alan A Stocker
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 3.  The influence of size in weight illusions is unique relative to other object features.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Saccone; Philippe A Chouinard
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-02

4.  Occam's Razor in sensorimotor learning.

Authors:  Tim Genewein; Daniel A Braun
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 5.  Getting a grip on heaviness perception: a review of weight illusions and their probable causes.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  The influence of competing perceptual and motor priors in the context of the size-weight illusion.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham; Melvyn A Goodale
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Does the sensorimotor system minimize prediction error or select the most likely prediction during object lifting?

Authors:  Joshua G A Cashaback; Heather R McGregor; Henry C H Pun; Gavin Buckingham; Paul L Gribble
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  The absence or temporal offset of visual feedback does not influence adaptation to novel movement dynamics.

Authors:  Erin McKenna; Laurence C Jayet Bray; Weiwei Zhou; Wilsaan M Joiner
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  The integration of size and weight cues for perception and action: evidence for a weight-size illusion.

Authors:  Sarah Hirsiger; Kristen Pickett; Jürgen Konczak
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Suboptimality in Perceptual Decision Making.

Authors:  Dobromir Rahnev; Rachel N Denison
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 12.579

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.