Multisensory Research最新文献

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.

One's ability to maintain their center of mass within their base of support (i.e., balance) is believed to be the result of multisensory integration. Much of the research in this literature has focused on integration of visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive cues. However, several recent studies have found evidence that auditory cues can impact balance control metrics. In the present study, we sought to better characterize the impact of auditory cues on narrow stance balance task performance with different combinations of visual stimuli (virtual and real world) and support surfaces (firm and compliant). In line with past results, we found that reducing the reliability of proprioceptive cues and visual cues yielded consistent increases in center-of-pressure (CoP) sway metrics, indicating more imbalance. Masking ambient auditory cues with broadband noise led to less consistent findings; however, when effects were observed they were substantially smaller for auditory cues than for proprioceptive and visual cues - and in the opposite direction (i.e., masking ambient auditory cues with broadband noise reduced sway in some situations). Additionally, trials that used virtual and real-world visual stimuli did not differ unless participants were standing on a surface that disrupted proprioceptive cues; disruption of proprioception led to increased CoP sway metrics in the virtual visual condition. This is the first manuscript to report the effect size of different perturbations in this context, and the first to study the impact of acoustically complex environments on balance in comparison to visual and proprioceptive contributions. Future research is needed to better characterize the impact of different acoustic environments on balance.

Vection is typically defined as the embodied illusion of self-motion in the absence of real physical movement through space. Vection can occur in real-life situations (e.g., 'train illusion') and in virtual environments and simulators. The vast majority of vection research focuses on vection caused by visual stimulation. Even though visually induced vection is arguably the most compelling type of vection, the role of nonvisual sensory inputs, such as auditory, biomechanical, tactile, and vestibular cues, have recently gained more attention. Non-visual cues can play an important role in inducing vection in two ways. First, nonvisual cues can affect the occurrence and strength of vection when added to corresponding visual information. Second, nonvisual cues can also elicit vection in the absence of visual information, for instance when observers are blindfolded or tested in darkness. The present paper provides a narrative review of the literature on multimodal contributions to vection. We will discuss both the theoretical and applied relevance of multisensory processing as related to the experience of vection and provide design considerations on how to enhance vection in various contexts.

Our ability to integrate multisensory information depends on processes occurring during the temporal binding window. There is limited research investigating the temporal binding window for visual-tactile integration and its relationship with autistic traits, sensory sensitivity, and unusual sensory experiences. We measured the temporal binding window for visual-tactile integration in 27 neurotypical participants who completed a simultaneity judgement task and three questionnaires: the Autism Quotient, the Glasgow Sensory Questionnaire, and the Multi-Modality Unusual Sensory Experiences Questionnaire. The average width of the visual-leading visual-tactile (VT) temporal binding window was 123 ms, significantly narrower than the tactile-leading visual-tactile (TV) window (193 ms). When comparing crossmodal (visual-tactile) stimuli with unimodal (visual-visual or tactile-tactile), the temporal binding window was significantly larger for crossmodal stimuli (VT: 123 ms; TV: 193 ms) than for unimodal pairs of stimuli (visual: 38 ms; tactile 42 ms). We did not find evidence to support a relationship between the size of the temporal binding window and autistic traits, sensory sensitivities, or unusual sensory perceptual experiences in this neurotypical population. Our results indicate that the leading sense presented in a multisensory pair influences the width of the temporal binding window. When tactile stimuli precede visual stimuli it may be difficult to determine the temporal boundaries of the stimuli, which leads to a delay in shifting attention from tactile to visual stimuli. This ambiguity in determining temporal boundaries of stimuli likely influences our ability to decide on whether stimuli are simultaneous or nonsimultaneous, which in turn leads to wider temporal binding windows.

Head movement relative to the stationary environment gives rise to congruent vestibular and visual optic-flow signals. The resulting perception of a stationary visual environment, referred to herein as stationarity perception, depends on mechanisms that compare visual and vestibular signals to evaluate their congruence. Here we investigate the functioning of these mechanisms and their dependence on fixation behavior as well as on the active versus passive nature of the head movement. Stationarity perception was measured by modifying the gain on visual motion relative to head movement on individual trials and asking subjects to report whether the gain was too low or too high. Fitting a psychometric function to the data yields two key parameters of performance. The mean is a measure of accuracy, and the standard deviation is a measure of precision. Experiments were conducted using a head-mounted display with fixation behavior monitored by an embedded eye tracker. During active conditions, subjects rotated their heads in yaw ∼15 deg/s over ∼1 s. Each subject's movements were recorded and played back via rotating chair during the passive condition. During head-fixed and scene-fixed fixation the fixation target moved with the head or scene, respectively. Both precision and accuracy were better during active than passive head movement, likely due to increased precision on the head movement estimate arising from motor prediction and neck proprioception. Performance was also better during scene-fixed than head-fixed fixation, perhaps due to decreased velocity of retinal image motion and increased precision on the retinal image motion estimate. These results reveal how the nature of head and eye movements mediate encoding, processing, and comparison of relevant sensory and motor signals.