Auditory Flutter-Driving of Visual Flicker

Shipley, Thorne

doi:10.1126/science.145.3638.1328

Cited by 178 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

136

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants were exposed to synchronous or asynchronous audiovisual stimuli (224 msec, V first, or 84 msec, A first, for 5 min of exposure), after which they performed a speeded reaction task on unimodal visual or auditory stimuli. In contrast with the idea that visual stimuli get adjusted in time to the relatively more accurate auditory stimuli (Hirsh & Sherrick, 1961;Shipley, 1964;Welch, 1999;Welch & Warren, 1980), their results seemed to show the opposite, namely that auditory rather than visual stimuli were shifted in time. The authors reported that simple RTs to sounds became approximately 20 msec faster after V-first exposure and about 20 msec slower after A-first exposure, whereas simple RTs for visual stimuli remained unchanged.…”

Section: Temporal Recalibrationcontrasting

confidence: 48%

Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review

Vroomen

Keetels

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

394

390

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Temporal Recalibrationcontrasting

confidence: 48%

Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review

Vroomen

Keetels

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

394

390

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…is subjectively sped up or slowed down as a function of the rate of auditory events. These findings have long been observed (Exner 1875;Hamlin 1895;Mass 1938;Gebhard & Mowbray 1959) and Shipley (1964) provided the first robust quantification of this 'flutter-driven flicker' perception. The dominance of auditory rate and rhythm over that of vision in time perception has been reported several times (Recanzone 2003;Wada et al 2003;Guttman et al 2005;Arrighi et al 2006), but temporal cross-capture, a perceptual effect in which audition and vision influence each other, has also been observed (Wada et al 2003).…”

Section: An Amodal Representational Space For Time Perception?mentioning

confidence: 90%

Minding time in an amodal representational space

Wassenhove

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

155

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How long did it take you to read this sentence? Chances are your response is a ball park estimate and its value depends on how fast you have scanned the text, how prepared you have been for this question, perhaps your mood or how much attention you have paid to these words. Time perception is here addressed in three sections. The first section summarizes theoretical difficulties in time perception research, specifically those pertaining to the representation of time and temporal processing. The second section reviews non-exhaustively temporal effects in multisensory perception. Sensory modalities interact in temporal judgement tasks, suggesting that (i) at some level of sensory analysis, the temporal properties across senses can be integrated in building a time percept and (ii) the representational format across senses is compatible for establishing such a percept. In the last section, a two-step analysis of temporal properties is sketched out. In the first step, it is proposed that temporal properties are automatically encoded at early stages of sensory analysis, thus providing the raw material for the building of a time percept; in the second step, time representations become available to perception through attentional gating of the raw temporal representations and via re-encoding into abstract representations.

show abstract

“…We are proposing that those crossattribute matching features should be temporally salient in such a way that they are distinctive from pre-and postsignals of the sequence (Fujisaki & Nishida 2005, 2007. Since they should be temporally sparse, crossmodal synchrony perception collapses for rapidly changing stimuli (Shipley 1964;Fujisaki & Nishida 2005, 2007Vatakis et al 2007). In a cluttered environment, selective attention plays a critical role in selecting matching signals for cross-modal synchrony judgements (Fujisaki et al 2006;Fujisaki & Nishida 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A common perceptual temporal limit of binding synchronous inputs across different sensory attributes and modalities

Fujisaki

Nishida²

2010

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The human brain processes different aspects of the surrounding environment through multiple sensory modalities, and each modality can be subdivided into multiple attribute-specific channels. When the brain rebinds sensory content information ('what') across different channels, temporal coincidence ('when') along with spatial coincidence ('where') provides a critical clue. It however remains unknown whether neural mechanisms for binding synchronous attributes are specific to each attribute combination, or universal and central. In human psychophysical experiments, we examined how combinations of visual, auditory and tactile attributes affect the temporal frequency limit of synchrony-based binding. The results indicated that the upper limits of cross-attribute binding were lower than those of withinattribute binding, and surprisingly similar for any combination of visual, auditory and tactile attributes (2 -3 Hz). They are unlikely to be the limits for judging synchrony, since the temporal limit of a crossattribute synchrony judgement was higher and varied with the modality combination (4 -9 Hz). These findings suggest that cross-attribute temporal binding is mediated by a slow central process that combines separately processed 'what' and 'when' properties of a single event. While the synchrony performance reflects temporal bottlenecks existing in 'when' processing, the binding performance reflects the central temporal limit of integrating 'when' and 'what' properties.

show abstract

Auditory Flutter-Driving of Visual Flicker

Cited by 178 publications

References 7 publications

Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review

Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review

Minding time in an amodal representational space

A common perceptual temporal limit of binding synchronous inputs across different sensory attributes and modalities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About