Since the discovery of neural regions in the monkey brain that respond preferentially to multisensory stimuli presented in proximal space, researchers have been studying this specialised spatial representation in humans. It has been demonstrated that approaching auditory or visual stimuli modulate tactile processing, while they are within the peripersonal space (PPS). The aim of the current study is to investigate the additional effects of tactile expectation on the PPS-related multisensory interactions. Based on the output of a computational simulation, we expected that as tactile expectation increases rapidly during the course of the motion of the visual stimulus, the outcome RT curves would mask the multisensory contribution of PPS. When the tactile expectation remains constant during the motion, the PPS-related spatially selective multisensory processes become apparent. The behavioural results on human experiments followed the pattern predicted by the simulation. That is, rapidly changing levels of tactile expectation, caused by dynamic visual stimuli, masks the outcome of the multisensory processes within peripersonal space. This indicates that both PPS-related multisensory interactions and tactile expectations play an important role in anticipating and responding to interactions with the body.

Visuospatial neglect has been observed in the horizontal (left/right) and vertical (up/down) dimension and depends on the distance at which a task is presented (near/far). Previously, studies have mainly focused on investigating the overall severity of neglect in near and far space in a group of neglect patients instead of examining subgroups of neglect patients with different types of distance-specific neglect. We investigated the spatial specificity (near vs. far space), frequency, and severity of neglect in the horizontal and vertical dimensions in a large group of stroke patients. We used three tasks to assess neglect in near (30 cm) and far (120 cm) space: a shape cancellation, letter cancellation, and a line bisection task. Patients were divided into four groups based on their performance: a group without neglect (N-F-), a near only neglect (N+F-), a far only neglect (N-F+), and a near and far neglect group (N+F+). About 40% of our sample showed neglect. Depending on the task, N+F- was observed in 8 to 22% of the sample, whereas N-F+ varied between 8% and 11%, and N+F+ varied between 11% to 14% of the sample. The current findings indicate that horizontal and vertical biases in performance can be confined to one region of space and are task dependent. We recommend testing for far space neglect during neuropsychological assessments in clinical practice, because this cannot be diagnosed using standard paper-and-pencil tasks.

No abstract

Pupillometry has received increased interest for its usefulness in measuring various sensory processes as an alternative to behavioural assessments. This is also apparent for multisensory investigations. Studies of the multisensory pupil response, however, have produced conflicting results. Some studies observed super-additive multisensory pupil responses, indicative of multisensory integration (MSI). Others observed additive multisensory pupil responses even though reaction time (RT) measures were indicative of MSI. Therefore, in the present study, we investigated the nature of the multisensory pupil response by combining methodological approaches of previous studies while using supra-threshold stimuli only. In two experiments we presented auditory and visual stimuli to observers that evoked a(n) (onset) response (be it constriction or dilation) in a simple detection task and a change detection task. In both experiments, the RT data indicated MSI as shown by race model inequality violation. Still, the multisensory pupil response in both experiments could best be explained by linear summation of the unisensory pupil responses. We conclude that the multisensory pupil response for supra-threshold stimuli is additive in nature and cannot be used as a measure of MSI, as only a departure from additivity can unequivocally demonstrate an interaction between the senses.

To facilitate visual continuity across eye movements, the visual system must presaccadically acquire information about the future foveal image. Previous studies have indicated that visual working memory (VWM) affects saccade execution. However, the reverse relation, the effect of saccade execution on VWM load is less clear. To investigate the causal link between saccade execution and VWM, we combined a VWM task and a saccade task. Participants were instructed to remember one, two, or three shapes and performed either a No Saccade-, a Single Saccade- or a Dual (corrective) Saccade-task. The results indicate that items stored in VWM are reported less accurately if a single saccade-or a dual saccade-task is performed next to retaining items in VWM. Importantly, the loss of response accuracy for items retained in VWM by performing a saccade was similar to committing an extra item to VWM. In a second experiment, we observed no cost of executing a saccade for auditory working memory performance, indicating that executing a saccade exclusively taxes the VWM system. Our results suggest that the visual system presaccadically stores the upcoming retinal image, which has a similar VWM load as committing one extra item to memory and interferes with stored VWM content. After the saccade, the visual system can retrieve this item from VWM to evaluate saccade accuracy. Our results support the idea that VWM is a system which is directly linked to saccade execution and promotes visual continuity across saccades.