Literature DB >> 27872958

Multisensory integration is independent of perceived simultaneity.

Vanessa Harrar1,2, Laurence R Harris3, Charles Spence4.   

Abstract

The importance of multisensory integration for perception and action has long been recognised. Integrating information from individual senses increases the chance of survival by reducing the variability in the incoming signals, thus allowing us to respond more rapidly. Reaction times (RTs) are fastest when the components of the multisensory signals are simultaneous. This response facilitation is traditionally attributed to multisensory integration. However, it is unclear if facilitation of RTs occurs when stimuli are perceived as synchronous or are actually physically synchronous. Repeated exposure to audiovisual asynchrony can change the delay at which multisensory stimuli are perceived as simultaneous, thus changing the delay at which the stimuli are integrated-perceptually. Here we set out to determine how such changes in multisensory integration for perception affect our ability to respond to multisensory events. If stimuli perceived as simultaneous were reacted to most rapidly, it would suggest a common system for multisensory integration for perception and action. If not, it would suggest separate systems. We measured RTs to auditory, visual, and audiovisual stimuli following exposure to audiovisual asynchrony. Exposure affected the variability of the unisensory RT distributions; in particular, the slowest RTs were either speed up or slowed down (in the direction predicted from shifts in perceived simultaneity). Additionally, the multisensory facilitation of RTs (beyond statistical summation) only occurred when audiovisual onsets were physically synchronous, rather than when they appeared simultaneous. We conclude that the perception of synchrony is therefore independent of multisensory integration and suggest a division between multisensory processes that are fast (automatic and unaffected by temporal adaptation) and those that are slow (perceptually driven and adaptable).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adaptation; Crossmodal; Ex-Gaussian; Miller’s inequality; Multisensory integration; Race model; Reaction time; Stimulus onset asynchrony; Time

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27872958     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4822-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  62 in total

1.  Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation.

Authors:  James A Hanley; Abdissa Negassa; Michael D deB Edwardes; Janet E Forrester
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-02-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Simultaneity constancy.

Authors:  Agnieszka Kopinska; Laurence R Harris
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.490

3.  Simultaneity constancy: detecting events with touch and vision.

Authors:  Vanessa Harrar; Laurence R Harris
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-07-19       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Recalibration of perceived time across sensory modalities.

Authors:  James V M Hanson; James Heron; David Whitaker
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-01-31       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  The time window of multisensory integration: relating reaction times and judgments of temporal order.

Authors:  Adele Diederich; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Sensory integration within temporally neutral systems states: a hypothesis.

Authors:  E Pöppel; K Schill; N von Steinbüchel
Journal:  Naturwissenschaften       Date:  1990-02

Review 7.  The construct of the multisensory temporal binding window and its dysregulation in developmental disabilities.

Authors:  Mark T Wallace; Ryan A Stevenson
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 3.139

8.  Asynchrony adaptation reveals neural population code for audio-visual timing.

Authors:  Neil W Roach; James Heron; David Whitaker; Paul V McGraw
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Perceived size change induced by audiovisual temporal delays.

Authors:  Philip Jaekl; Salvador Soto-Faraco; Laurence R Harris
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Exposure to delayed visual feedback of the hand changes motor-sensory synchrony perception.

Authors:  Mirjam Keetels; Jean Vroomen
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  7 in total

1.  Effects of auditory feedback on movements with two-segment sequence and eye-hand coordination.

Authors:  Miya K Rand
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Audiovisual integration in depth: multisensory binding and gain as a function of distance.

Authors:  Jean-Paul Noel; Kahan Modi; Mark T Wallace; Nathan Van der Stoep
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Effect of timing delay between visual and vestibular stimuli on heading perception.

Authors:  Raul Rodriguez; Benjamin T Crane
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 2.974

4.  Musical training refines audiovisual integration but does not influence temporal recalibration.

Authors:  Matthew O'Donohue; Philippe Lacherez; Naohide Yamamoto
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 4.996

5.  Audio-motor but not visuo-motor temporal recalibration speeds up sensory processing.

Authors:  Yoshimori Sugano; Mirjam Keetels; Jean Vroomen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Multisensory enhancement elicited by unconscious visual stimuli.

Authors:  Ayla Barutchu; Charles Spence; Glyn W Humphreys
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Crowdsourced Measurement of Reaction Times to Audiovisual Stimuli With Various Degrees of Asynchrony.

Authors:  Pavlo Bazilinskyy; Joost de Winter
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 2.888

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.