The brain integrates information from multiple sensory modalities and, through this process, generates a coherent and apparently seamless percept of the external world. Although multisensory integration typically binds information that is derived from the same event, when multisensory cues are somewhat discordant they can result in illusory percepts such as the "ventriloquism effect." These biases in stimulus localization are generally accompanied by the perceptual unification of the two stimuli. In the current study, we sought to further elucidate the relationship between localization biases, perceptual unification and measures of a participant's uncertainty in target localization (i.e., variability). Participants performed an auditory localization task in which they were also asked to report on whether they perceived the auditory and visual stimuli to be perceptually unified. The auditory and visual stimuli were delivered at a variety of spatial (0 degrees, 5 degrees, 10 degrees, 15 degrees ) and temporal (200, 500, 800 ms) disparities. Localization bias and reports of perceptual unity occurred even with substantial spatial (i.e., 15 degrees ) and temporal (i.e., 800 ms) disparities. Trial-by-trial comparison of these measures revealed a striking correlation: regardless of their disparity, whenever the auditory and visual stimuli were perceived as unified, they were localized at or very near the light. In contrast, when the stimuli were perceived as not unified, auditory localization was often biased away from the visual stimulus. Furthermore, localization variability was significantly less when the stimuli were perceived as unified. Intriguingly, on non-unity trials such variability increased with decreasing disparity. Together, these results suggest strong and potentially mechanistic links between the multiple facets of multisensory integration that contribute to our perceptual Gestalt.

The ability of a visual signal to influence the localization of an auditory target (i.e., "cross-modal bias") was examined as a function of the spatial disparity between the two stimuli and their absolute locations in space. Three experimental issues were examined: (a) the effect of a spatially disparate visual stimulus on auditory localization judgments; (b) how the ability to localize visual, auditory, and spatially aligned multisensory (visual-auditory) targets is related to cross-modal bias, and (c) the relationship between the magnitude of cross-modal bias and the perception that the two stimuli are spatially "unified" (i.e., originate from the same location). Whereas variability in localization of auditory targets was large and fairly uniform for all tested locations, variability in localizing visual or spatially aligned multisensory targets was much smaller, and increased with increasing distance from the midline. This trend proved to be strongly correlated with biasing effectiveness, for although visual-auditory bias was unexpectedly large in all conditions tested, it decreased progressively (as localization variability increased) with increasing distance from the midline. Thus, central visual stimuli had a substantially greater biasing effect on auditory target localization than did more peripheral visual stimuli. It was also apparent that cross-modal bias decreased as the degree of visual-auditory disparity increased. Consequently, the greatest visual-auditory biases were obtained with small disparities at central locations. In all cases, the magnitude of these biases covaried with judgments of spatial unity. The results suggest that functional properties of the visual system play the predominant role in determining these visual-auditory interactions and that cross-modal biases can be substantially greater than previously noted.

Arend and Reeves [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3, 1743 (1986)] described measurements of color constancy in computer simulations of arrays of colored papers of equal Munsell value under 4000-, 6500-, and 10,000-K daylight illuminants. We report an extension of those experiments to chromatic arrays spanning a wide range of Munsell values. The computer-simulated scene included a standard array of Munsell papers under 6500-K illumination and a test array, an identical array of the same papers under 4000 or 10,000 K. Observers adjusted a patch in the test array in order to match the corresponding patch in the standard array by one of two criteria. They either matched hue and saturation or they made surface-color matches, in which the test patch was made to "look as if it were cut from the same pice of paper as the standard patch." The test and the standard patches were surrounded by a single color (annulus display) or by many colors (Mondrian display). The data agreed with those of our previous equal-value experiment. The paper matches were often approximately color constant. The hue-saturation matches were in the correct direction for constancy but were always closer to a chromaticity match (no constancy) than to the chromaticity required for hue-saturation constancy.

Three experiments wereconducted in an attempt to replicate and clarify Gilchrist's ( ,1980 experiments on the effects of depth information on judgments of achromatic surface color. Gilchrist found that coplanarity, and not retinal adjacency, was the dominant factor in determining achromatic color matches. Because such matches can be made on the basis of either brightness or lightness, we obtained judgments of both qualities. Stereopsis was added to enhance the perceived depth effect of Gilchrist's display, which was otherwise simulated closely on a highresolution CRT. The results for lightness followed the same pattern as those of Gilchrist, but were smaller in magnitude. This discrepancy may reflect reduced extraneous lighting effects in our displays. Our results therefore agree with related studies in suggesting that lightness matches are based on relationships among coplanar surfaces. Brightness matches, however, were not influenced by perceived depth.Achromatic surface perception is modifiable by information specifying depth relations between adjacent surfaces (Gilchrist, , 1980Wist, 1974). Here we report a replication of Gilchrist's impressive demonstrations that large shifts in perceived lightness can be obtained by using depth information to indicate which surfaces are coplanar and which are not. argued that "perceived lightness might be determined primarily by ratios within perceived planes rather than by all retinal ratios regardless of perceived depth" (p. 186). We have also found this to be the case for lightness judgments, but not for brightness judgments.Usage of the terms "lightness" and "brightness" has varied over the years. We will use them here as they have been used in other recent work on surface-color perception (Arend & Goldstein, 1987, in press). Lightness will be used to refer to apparent reflectance, perceptions ranging from blacks through grays to whites. This agrees closely with Evans's (1974) usage. Brightness will be used to refer to perceived luminance, the "overall effective intensity of the stimuli or stimulus" (Evans, 1974, p. 192). These are two distinct, simultaneously available dimensions of experience rather than mutually exclusive " modes" of perception.

By displaying a risk reduction of 50% graphically rather than numerically, Stone, Yates, and Parker significantly increased professed risk-avoidant behavior. The current experiments replicated this effect at various risk ratios. Specifically, participants were willing to spend more money to reduce a risk when the risk information was displayed by asterisks rather than by numbers for risk-reduction ratios ranging from 3% to 97%. Transforming the amount participants were willing to spend to logarithms significantly improved a linear fit to the data, suggesting that participants convert this variable within the decision-making process. Moreover, a log-linear model affords an exceptional fit to both the graphical and numerical data, suggesting that a graphical presentation elicits the same decision-making mechanism as does the numerical display. In addition, the data also suggest that each person removed from harm is weighted more by some additional factor in the graphical compared to the numerical presentations.