Literature DB >> 24431437

Auditory and tactile signals combine to influence vision during binocular rivalry.

Claudia Lunghi1, Maria Concetta Morrone, David Alais.   

Abstract

Resolution of perceptual ambiguity is one function of cross-modal interactions. Here we investigate whether auditory and tactile stimuli can influence binocular rivalry generated by interocular temporal conflict in human subjects. Using dichoptic visual stimuli modulating at different temporal frequencies, we added modulating sounds or vibrations congruent with one or the other visual temporal frequency. Auditory and tactile stimulation both interacted with binocular rivalry by promoting dominance of the congruent visual stimulus. This effect depended on the cross-modal modulation strength and was absent when modulation depth declined to 33%. However, when auditory and tactile stimuli that were too weak on their own to bias binocular rivalry were combined, their influence over vision was very strong, suggesting the auditory and tactile temporal signals combined to influence vision. Similarly, interleaving discrete pulses of auditory and tactile stimuli also promoted dominance of the visual stimulus congruent with the supramodal frequency. When auditory and tactile stimuli were presented at maximum strength, but in antiphase, they had no influence over vision for low temporal frequencies, a null effect again suggesting audio-tactile combination. We also found that the cross-modal interaction was frequency-sensitive at low temporal frequencies, when information about temporal phase alignment can be perceptually tracked. These results show that auditory and tactile temporal processing is functionally linked, suggesting a common neural substrate for the two sensory modalities and that at low temporal frequencies visual activity can be synchronized by a congruent cross-modal signal in a frequency-selective way, suggesting the existence of a supramodal temporal binding mechanism.

Entities:  

Keywords:  binocular rivalry; multisensory; neural entrainment; psychophysics; temporal processing

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24431437      PMCID: PMC6608344          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2732-13.2014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  53 in total

1.  Spatial limitations of temporal segmentation.

Authors:  J Forte; J H Hogben; J Ross
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 2.  Visual competition.

Authors:  Randolph Blake; Nikos K Logothetis
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 34.870

3.  Multisensory convergence in calcarine visual areas in macaque monkey.

Authors:  Kathleen S Rockland; Hisayuki Ojima
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.997

4.  How context influences predominance during binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Kenith V Sobel; Randolph Blake
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Neural synergy between kinetic vision and touch.

Authors:  Randolph Blake; Kenith V Sobel; Thomas W James
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-06

6.  Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures.

Authors:  Ming Meng; Frank Tong
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2004-07-01       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  On the variety of percepts associated with dichoptic viewing of dissimilar monocular stimuli.

Authors:  Y Yang; D Rose; R Blake
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 8.  Merging the senses into a robust percept.

Authors:  Marc O Ernst; Heinrich H Bülthoff
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 20.229

9.  Temporal properties of human visual filters: number, shapes and spatial covariation.

Authors:  R F Hess; R J Snowden
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Long-distance feedback projections to area V1: implications for multisensory integration, spatial awareness, and visual consciousness.

Authors:  Simon Clavagnier; Arnaud Falchier; Henry Kennedy
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.282

View more
  24 in total

1.  When audiovisual correspondence disturbs visual processing.

Authors:  Sang Wook Hong; Won Mok Shim
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Melodic sound enhances visual awareness of congruent musical notes, but only if you can read music.

Authors:  Minyoung Lee; Randolph Blake; Sujin Kim; Chai-Youn Kim
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Intersensory selective attention and temporal orienting operate in parallel and are instantiated in spatially distinct sensory and motor cortices.

Authors:  Ulrich Pomper; Julian Keil; John J Foxe; Daniel Senkowski
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 4.  The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing.

Authors:  Sanne ten Oever; Vincenzo Romei; Nienke van Atteveldt; Salvador Soto-Faraco; Micah M Murray; Pawel J Matusz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Reciprocal Interactions Between Audition and Touch in Flutter Frequency Perception.

Authors:  Silvia Convento; Kira A Wegner-Clemens; Jeffrey M Yau
Journal:  Multisens Res       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 2.286

Review 6.  The Complex Interplay Between Multisensory Integration and Perceptual Awareness.

Authors:  O Deroy; N Faivre; C Lunghi; C Spence; M Aller; U Noppeney
Journal:  Multisens Res       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.286

7.  Early Cross-modal Plasticity in Adults.

Authors:  Luca Lo Verde; Maria Concetta Morrone; Claudia Lunghi
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 8.  Growing evidence for separate neural mechanisms for attention and consciousness.

Authors:  Alexander Maier; Naotsugu Tsuchiya
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Suppressed visual looming stimuli are not integrated with auditory looming signals: Evidence from continuous flash suppression.

Authors:  Pieter Moors; Hanne Huygelier; Johan Wagemans; Lee de-Wit; Raymond van Ee
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2015-03-17

10.  Congruent tactile stimulation reduces the strength of visual suppression during binocular rivalry.

Authors:  Claudia Lunghi; David Alais
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.