Multisensory Research最新文献

A vital heuristic used when making judgements on whether audio-visual signals arise from the same event, is the temporal coincidence of the respective signals. Previous research has highlighted a process, whereby the perception of simultaneity rapidly recalibrates to account for differences in the physical temporal offsets of stimuli. The current paper investigated whether rapid recalibration also occurs in response to differences in central arrival latencies, driven by visual-intensity-dependent processing times. In a behavioural experiment, observers completed a temporal-order judgement (TOJ), simultaneity judgement (SJ) and simple reaction-time (RT) task and responded to audio-visual trials that were preceded by other audio-visual trials with either a bright or dim visual stimulus. It was found that the point of subjective simultaneity shifted, due to the visual intensity of the preceding stimulus, in the TOJ, but not SJ task, while the RT data revealed no effect of preceding intensity. Our data therefore provide some evidence that the perception of simultaneity rapidly recalibrates based on stimulus intensity.

While navigating through the surroundings, we constantly rely on inertial vestibular signals for self-motion along with visual and acoustic spatial references from the environment. However, the interaction between inertial cues and environmental spatial references is not yet fully understood. Here we investigated whether vestibular self-motion sensitivity is influenced by sensory spatial references. Healthy participants were administered a Vestibular Self-Motion Detection Task in which they were asked to detect vestibular self-motion sensations induced by low-intensity Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation. Participants performed this detection task with or without an external visual or acoustic spatial reference placed directly in front of them. We computed the d prime ( d ' ) as a measure of participants' vestibular sensitivity and the criterion as an index of their response bias. Results showed that the visual spatial reference increased sensitivity to detect vestibular self-motion. Conversely, the acoustic spatial reference did not influence self-motion sensitivity. Both visual and auditory spatial references did not cause changes in response bias. Environmental visual spatial references provide relevant information to enhance our ability to perceive inertial self-motion cues, suggesting a specific interaction between visual and vestibular systems in self-motion perception.

Multisensory context often facilitates perception and memory. In fact, encoding items within a multisensory context can improve memory even on strictly unisensory tests (i.e., when the multisensory context is absent). Prior studies that have consistently found these multisensory facilitation effects have largely employed multisensory contexts in which the stimuli were meaningfully related to the items targeting for remembering (e.g., pairing canonical sounds and images). Other studies have used unrelated stimuli as multisensory context. A third possible type of multisensory context is one that is environmentally related simply because the stimuli are often encountered together in the real world. We predicted that encountering such a multisensory context would also enhance memory through cross-modal associations, or representations relating to one's prior multisensory experience with that sort of stimuli in general. In two memory experiments, we used faces and voices of unfamiliar people as everyday stimuli individuals have substantial experience integrating the perceptual features of. We assigned participants to face- or voice-recognition groups and ensured that, during the study phase, half of the face or voice targets were encountered also with information in the other modality. Voices initially encoded along with faces were consistently remembered better, providing evidence that cross-modal associations could explain the observed multisensory facilitation.

This study aimed to determine the extent to which haptic stimuli can influence ocular accommodation, either alone or in combination with vision. Accommodation was measured objectively in 15 young adults as they read stationary targets containing Braille letters. These cards were presented at four distances in the range 20-50 cm. In the Touch condition, the participant read by touch with their dominant hand in a dark room. Afterward, they estimated card distance with their non-dominant hand. In the Vision condition, they read by sight binocularly without touch in a lighted room. In the Touch with Vision condition, they read by sight binocularly and with touch in a lighted room. Sensory modality had a significant overall effect on the slope of the accommodative stimulus-response function. The slope in the Touch condition was not significantly different from zero, even though depth perception from touch was accurate. Nevertheless, one atypical participant had a moderate accommodative slope in the Touch condition. The accommodative slope in the Touch condition was significantly poorer than in the Vision condition. The accommodative slopes in the Vision condition and Touch with Vision condition were not significantly different. For most individuals, haptic stimuli for stationary objects do not influence the accommodation response, alone or in combination with vision. These haptic stimuli provide accurate distance perception, thus questioning the general validity of Heath's model of proximal accommodation as driven by perceived distance. Instead, proximally induced accommodation relies on visual rather than touch stimuli.

The past two decades have seen an explosion of research on cross-modal correspondences. Broadly speaking, this term has been used to encompass associations between and among features, dimensions, or attributes across the senses. There has been an increasing interest in this topic amongst researchers from multiple fields (psychology, neuroscience, music, art, environmental design, etc.) and, importantly, an increasing breadth of the topic's scope. Here, this narrative review aims to reflect on what cross-modal correspondences are, where they come from, and what underlies them. We suggest that cross-modal correspondences are usefully conceived as relative associations between different actual or imagined sensory stimuli, many of these correspondences being shared by most people. A taxonomy of correspondences with four major kinds of associations (physiological, semantic, statistical, and affective) characterizes cross-modal correspondences. Sensory dimensions (quantity/quality) and sensory features (lower perceptual/higher cognitive) correspond in cross-modal correspondences. Cross-modal correspondences may be understood (or measured) from two complementary perspectives: the phenomenal view (perceptual experiences of subjective matching) and the behavioural response view (observable patterns of behavioural response to multiple sensory stimuli). Importantly, we reflect on remaining questions and standing issues that need to be addressed in order to develop an explanatory framework for cross-modal correspondences. Future research needs (a) to understand better when (and why) phenomenal and behavioural measures are coincidental and when they are not, and, ideally, (b) to determine whether different kinds of cross-modal correspondence (quantity/quality, lower perceptual/higher cognitive) rely on the same or different mechanisms.