Literature DB >> 25080598

Humans use predictive kinematic models to calibrate visual cues to three-dimensional surface slant.

Peter Scarfe1, Andrew Glennerster2.   

Abstract

When the sensory consequences of an action are systematically altered our brain can recalibrate the mappings between sensory cues and properties of our environment. This recalibration can be driven by both cue conflicts and altered sensory statistics, but neither mechanism offers a way for cues to be calibrated so they provide accurate information about the world, as sensory cues carry no information as to their own accuracy. Here, we explored whether sensory predictions based on internal physical models could be used to accurately calibrate visual cues to 3D surface slant. Human observers played a 3D kinematic game in which they adjusted the slant of a surface so that a moving ball would bounce off the surface and through a target hoop. In one group, the ball's bounce was manipulated so that the surface behaved as if it had a different slant to that signaled by visual cues. With experience of this altered bounce, observers recalibrated their perception of slant so that it was more consistent with the assumed laws of kinematics and physical behavior of the surface. In another group, making the ball spin in a way that could physically explain its altered bounce eliminated this pattern of recalibration. Importantly, both groups adjusted their behavior in the kinematic game in the same way, experienced the same set of slants, and were not presented with low-level cue conflicts that could drive the recalibration. We conclude that observers use predictive kinematic models to accurately calibrate visual cues to 3D properties of world.
Copyright © 2014 Scarfe and Glennerster.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D slant; calibration; psychophysics; stereopsis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25080598      PMCID: PMC4115143          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1000-14.2014

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


  49 in total

1.  Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation.

Authors:  S J Blakemore; D M Wolpert; C D Frith
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  The cerebellum is involved in predicting the sensory consequences of action.

Authors:  S J Blakemore; C D Frith; D M Wolpert
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2001-07-03       Impact factor: 1.837

Review 3.  Computational mechanisms of sensorimotor control.

Authors:  David W Franklin; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 17.173

Review 4.  Causal inference in perception.

Authors:  Ladan Shams; Ulrik R Beierholm
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 20.229

5.  Experience-dependent visual cue integration based on consistencies between visual and haptic percepts.

Authors:  J E Atkins; J Fiser; R A Jacobs
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch.

Authors:  Marc O Ernst
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2007-06-25       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Internal models in the cerebellum.

Authors:  D M Wolpert; R C Miall; M Kawato
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1998-09-01       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 8.  Visuomotor adaptation and proprioceptive recalibration.

Authors:  Denise Y P Henriques; Erin K Cressman
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.328

Review 9.  Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science.

Authors:  Andy Clark
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 12.579

10.  Alternating prism exposure causes dual adaptation and generalization to a novel displacement.

Authors:  R B Welch; B Bridgeman; S Anand; K E Browman
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1993-08
View more
  2 in total

1.  Spatial Frequency Tuning and Transfer of Perceptual Learning for Motion Coherence Reflects the Tuning Properties of Global Motion Processing.

Authors:  Jordi M Asher; Vincenzo Romei; Paul B Hibbard
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-09-02

2.  Experimentally disambiguating models of sensory cue integration.

Authors:  Peter Scarfe
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 2.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.