Literature DB >> 28721518

Illusory visual-depth reversal can modulate sensations of contact surface.

Yuka Igarashi1, Keiko Omori2, Tetsuya Arai3,4, Yasunori Aizawa2.   

Abstract

To perceive the external world stably, humans must integrate and manage continuous streams of information from various sensory modalities, in addition to drawing on past experiences and knowledge. In this study, we introduce a novel visuo-tactile illusion elicited by a visual-depth-reversal stimulus. The stimulus (a model of a building) was constructed so as to produce the same retinal image as an opaque cuboid, although it actually consisted of only three PVC boards forming a three-dimensional corner with the hollow inside facing the observer. Participants holding the model in their palm, therefore, observed, with both eyes or one eye, a building model that could be interpreted as either a concave or a convex cuboid. That is, tactile information from the contact surface contradicted the visual interpretation of a convex cuboid. Questionnaire and experimental results, however, showed that the building model was stably viewed as a standing cuboid, particularly under monocular observation. Participants also reported feeling a stable touch of the shrinking base of the apparently standing building model, thus ignoring the veridical contact surface. Given that the visual-tactile information was unchanged with or without the illusion and that the experimental task was tactile estimation, it is remarkable that participants failed to perceive actual touch based on the object's appearance. Results indicate the complexity and flexibility of visual-tactile integration processes. We also discuss the possibility that object knowledge influences visual-tactile integration.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contact surface; Depth reversal; Illusion; Size estimation; Visual-tactile integration

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28721518     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-017-5034-0

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


  24 in total

1.  Volume completion.

Authors:  P U Tse
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  What determines visual cue reliability?

Authors:  Robert A. Jacobs
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-08-01       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  Perceptual learning: inverting the size-weight illusion.

Authors:  Marc O Ernst
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 10.834

6.  Dominance of touch by vision: generalization of the hypothesis to a tactually experienced population.

Authors:  R P Power; A Graham
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 7.  Getting a grip on heaviness perception: a review of weight illusions and their probable causes.

Authors:  Gavin Buckingham
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Interaction of vision and touch in conflict and nonconflict form perception tasks.

Authors:  E A Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1972-11

9.  Optimal integration of shape information from vision and touch.

Authors:  Hannah B Helbig; Marc O Ernst
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-01-16       Impact factor: 2.064

10.  Adaptation of cortical activity to sustained pressure stimulation on the fingertip.

Authors:  Yoon Gi Chung; Sang Woo Han; Hyung-Sik Kim; Soon-Cheol Chung; Jang-Yeon Park; Christian Wallraven; Sung-Phil Kim
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 3.288

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.