Literature DB >> 22872777

Auditory transients do not affect visual sensitivity in discriminating between objective streaming and bouncing events.

Philip M Grove1, Jessica Ashton, Yousuke Kawachi, Kenzo Sakurai.   

Abstract

With few exceptions, the sound-induced bias toward bouncing characteristic of the stream/bounce effect has been demonstrated via subjective responses, leaving open the question whether perceptual factors, decisional factors, or some combination of the two underlie the illusion. We addressed this issue directly, using a novel stimulus and signal detection theory to independently characterize observers' sensitivity (d') and criterion (c) when discriminating between objective streaming and bouncing events in the presence or absence of a brief sound at the point of coincidence. We first confirmed that sound-induced motion reversals persist despite rendering the targets visually distinguishable by differences in texture density. Sound-induced bouncing persisted for targets differing by as many as nine just-noticeable-differences (JNDs). We then exploited this finding in our signal detection paradigm in which observers discriminated between objective streaming and bouncing events. We failed to find any difference in sensitivity (d') between sound and no-sound conditions, but we did observe a significantly more liberal criterion (c) in the sound condition than the no-sound condition. The results suggest that the auditory-induced bias toward bouncing in this context is attributable to a sound-induced shift in criterion implicating decisional processes rather than perceptual processes determining responses to these displays.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22872777     DOI: 10.1167/12.8.5

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


  10 in total

1.  Contribution of Sensory Encoding to Measured Bias.

Authors:  Miaomiao Jin; Lindsey L Glickfeld
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 2.  Action potential influences spatial perception: Evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception.

Authors:  Jessica K Witt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-08

3.  Tactile stimulation disambiguates the perception of visual motion paths.

Authors:  Hauke S Meyerhoff; Simon Merz; Christian Frings
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-12

4.  What you see and what you are told: an action-specific effect that is unaffected by explicit feedback.

Authors:  Zachary R King; Nathan L Tenhundfeld; Jessica K Witt
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-03-02

5.  Pre-coincidence brain activity predicts the perceptual outcome of streaming/bouncing motion display.

Authors:  Song Zhao; Yajie Wang; Lina Jia; Chengzhi Feng; Yu Liao; Wenfeng Feng
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Noise, multisensory integration, and previous response in perceptual disambiguation.

Authors:  Cesare V Parise; Marc O Ernst
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  Arousing emoticons edit stream/bounce perception of objects moving past each other.

Authors:  Akihiko Gobara; Naoto Yoshimura; Yuki Yamada
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Defending subjective inflation: an inference to the best explanation.

Authors:  J D Knotts; Matthias Michel; Brian Odegaard
Journal:  Neurosci Conscious       Date:  2020-12-12

9.  Visual Mislocalization of Moving Objects in an Audiovisual Event.

Authors:  Yousuke Kawachi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Temporal dynamics of the flash-induced bouncing effect.

Authors:  Hui Zhong; Song Zhao; Tingji Chen; Wanlu Yang; Xinyin Huang; Wenfeng Feng
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 5.038

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.