Literature DB >> 27121574

Tactile length contraction as Bayesian inference.

Jonathan Tong1, Vy Ngo1, Daniel Goldreich2.   

Abstract

To perceive, the brain must interpret stimulus-evoked neural activity. This is challenging: The stochastic nature of the neural response renders its interpretation inherently uncertain. Perception would be optimized if the brain used Bayesian inference to interpret inputs in light of expectations derived from experience. Bayesian inference would improve perception on average but cause illusions when stimuli violate expectation. Intriguingly, tactile, auditory, and visual perception are all prone to length contraction illusions, characterized by the dramatic underestimation of the distance between punctate stimuli delivered in rapid succession; the origin of these illusions has been mysterious. We previously proposed that length contraction illusions occur because the brain interprets punctate stimulus sequences using Bayesian inference with a low-velocity expectation. A novel prediction of our Bayesian observer model is that length contraction should intensify if stimuli are made more difficult to localize. Here we report a tactile psychophysical study that tested this prediction. Twenty humans compared two distances on the forearm: a fixed reference distance defined by two taps with 1-s temporal separation and an adjustable comparison distance defined by two taps with temporal separation t ≤ 1 s. We observed significant length contraction: As t was decreased, participants perceived the two distances as equal only when the comparison distance was made progressively greater than the reference distance. Furthermore, the use of weaker taps significantly enhanced participants' length contraction. These findings confirm the model's predictions, supporting the view that the spatiotemporal percept is a best estimate resulting from a Bayesian inference process.
Copyright © 2016 the American Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian inference; sensory saltation; somatosensory psychophysics; spatial illusion; uncertainty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27121574      PMCID: PMC4969385          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00029.2016

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


  56 in total

1.  Cortical focusing is an alternative explanation for improved sensory acuity on an amputation stump.

Authors:  C E Moore; A Partner; E M Sedgwick
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  1999-08-06       Impact factor: 3.046

2.  Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: a commentary.

Authors:  S A Klein
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-11

3.  Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning.

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

4.  A new phenomenon in time judgment.

Authors:  J COHEN; C E HANSEL; J D SYLVESTER
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1953-11-14       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes.

Authors:  Wei Ji Ma; Jeffrey M Beck; Peter E Latham; Alexandre Pouget
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-10-22       Impact factor: 24.884

6.  Spatiotemporal receptive fields of peripheral afferents and cortical area 3b and 1 neurons in the primate somatosensory system.

Authors:  Arun P Sripati; Takashi Yoshioka; Peter Denchev; Steven S Hsiao; Kenneth O Johnson
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Saltation through the blind spot.

Authors:  G R Lockhead; R C Johnson; F M Gold
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1980-06

8.  An illusion of auditory saltation similar to the cutaneous "rabbit".

Authors:  C D Bremer; J B Pittenger; R Warren; J J Jenkins
Journal:  Am J Psychol       Date:  1977-12

9.  Somatosensory space abridged: rapid change in tactile localization using a motion stimulus.

Authors:  Tatjana Seizova-Cajic; Janet L Taylor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Two-point orientation discrimination versus the traditional two-point test for tactile spatial acuity assessment.

Authors:  Jonathan Tong; Oliver Mao; Daniel Goldreich
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-13       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  6 in total

1.  Tactile motion lacks momentum.

Authors:  Gianluca Macauda; Bigna Lenggenhager; Rebekka Meier; Gregory Essick; Peter Brugger
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-06-08

2.  Cortical Merging in S1 as a Substrate for Tactile Input Grouping.

Authors:  Julien Corbo; Yoh'I Zennou-Azogui; Christian Xerri; Nicolas Catz
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2018-01-16

3.  An Adaptation-Induced Repulsion Illusion in Tactile Spatial Perception.

Authors:  Lux Li; Arielle Chan; Shah M Iqbal; Daniel Goldreich
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  Layer-specific activation of sensory input and predictive feedback in the human primary somatosensory cortex.

Authors:  Yinghua Yu; Laurentius Huber; Jiajia Yang; David C Jangraw; Daniel A Handwerker; Peter J Molfese; Gang Chen; Yoshimichi Ejima; Jinglong Wu; Peter A Bandettini
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 14.136

5.  Comparing Tactile to Auditory Guidance for Blind Individuals.

Authors:  Arnav Bharadwaj; Saurabh Bhaskar Shaw; Daniel Goldreich
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Humans Use a Temporally Local Code for Vibrotactile Perception.

Authors:  Arindam Bhattacharjee; Christoph Braun; Cornelius Schwarz
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2021-11-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.