Auditory transients do not affect visual sensitivity in discriminating between objective streaming and bouncing events

Grove, Philip M.; Ashton, Jessica; Kawachi, Yousuke; Sakurai, Kazuo

doi:10.1167/12.8.5

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This analysis opens up another possible line of investigation in which transients such as tones or visual flashes at or near the point of coincidence, which would suggest bouncing, are pitted against perceptual grouping cues, such as proximity, size, shape, color, and smooth continuation, which could be rendered consistent with streaming. A variety of cue combinations could be investigated to determine the relative strength of organizing cues in a similar approach to Grove and Sakurai (2009), who showed that auditory-induced bouncing persisted even when the trajectories of the individual disks were spatially displaced, tipping the probability of the resolution towards streaming (see also Grove, Ashton, Kawachi, & Sakurai, 2012 for a similar effect when the targets were rendered distinguishable via texture density differences).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A single auditory tone alters the perception of multiple visual events

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to show that a single auditory tone crossmodally affects multiple visual events using a multiple stream/bounce display (SBD), consisting of two disk pairs moving toward each other at equal speeds, coinciding, and then moving apart in a two-dimensional (2-D) display. The temporal offsets were manipulated between the coincidences of the disk pairs (0 to ±240 ms) by staggering motion onset between the pairs. A tone was presented at the coincidence timing of one of the disk pairs on half of the trials. Participants judged whether the disks in each of two pairs appeared to stream through or bounce off each other. Results show that a tone presented at either of the disk pairs' coincidence points promoted bouncing percepts in both disk pairs compared to no-tone trials. Perceived bouncing persisted in the disk-pair whose coincidence was offset 60 ms before and up to more than 120 ms after the audiovisual coincidence timing of the other disk-pair. The temporal window of bounce promotion was comparable to that obtained with a conventional SBD. The interaction of a single auditory event and multiple visual events was also modulated by the kind of experimental task (the stream/bounce or simultaneity judgments). These findings suggest that, using a single auditory cue, the perceptual system resolves the ambiguity of the motion of multiple disk pairs presented within the conventional temporal window of crossmodal interaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A single auditory tone alters the perception of multiple visual events

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…My colleagues and I have made a similar point with respect to perceptual and response-based biases analyzed using signal detection theory (Witt, Taylor, Sugovic, & Wixted, 2015). Some researchers have claimed, solely on the basis of an effect on the bias measure c, that the effect is due to response-based bias and is not perceptual (e.g., Choe, Welch, Gilford, & Juola, 1975;Grove, Ashton, Kawachi, & Sakurai, 2012). In contrast, we used simulations of the Müller-Lyer illusion to show that both a perceptual bias and a response-based bias can produce the exact same pattern in the measure c. In other words, when the Müller-Lyer illusion is modeled as a perceptual bias in which lines with tails oriented inward appear shorter than lines with tails outward (i.e., the classic interpretation of this bias), 1002 Psychon Bull Rev (2017) 24:999-1021 signal detection theory analyses showed a large effect on c but no effect on d'.…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Action potential influences spatial perception: Evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception

Witt

2016

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The action-specific account of spatial perception asserts that a perceiver's ability to perform an action, such as hitting a softball or walking up a hill, impacts the visual perception of the target object. Although much evidence is consistent with this claim, the evidence has been challenged as to whether perception is truly impacted, as opposed to the responses themselves. These challenges have recently been organized as six pitfalls that provide a framework with which to evaluate the empirical evidence. Four case studies of actionspecific effects are offered as evidence that meets the framework's high bar, and thus that demonstrates genuine perceptual effects. That action influences spatial perception is evidence that perceptual and action-related processes are intricately and bidirectionally linked.Keywords Embodied cognition . Spatial cognition . Visual perception . Action-specific perception No vision scientist would deny that a primary purpose of vision is action. But how vision best serves action has been continuously debated. For some, visual perception best serves action by being as geometrically accurate as possible. Given ambiguities in the visual information, the visual system makes underlying assumptions (known as priors or natural constraints) and unconscious inferences based on statistical regularities of the environment. These approaches fall under constructivist accounts. Action's role in constructivist approaches is primarily limited to being a motivation for why perception needs to achieve constancy (so that visual information can be successfully transformed into motor coordinates), but is not itself considered to be an influence for perception.Even for approaches to vision that place a greater emphasis on action, its role is limited. According to the ecological account, perception best serves action by being faithful to the visual information, without being supplemented with extraneous ideas (Gibson, 1979; see Witt & Riley, 2014, for extended discussion on the discrepencies between ecological and action-specific approaches). In situations in which the visual information is ambiguous, the perceiver can simply move around the object to accumulate more information until the information is unambiguous. For ecological accounts, action's role is relevant in gathering the necessary visual information, and action drives perception to actively select the information that is relevant for action, but action does not provide direct information for perception. As another example of an account that purportedly emphasizes action, the theory of two visual streams emphasizes both perception and action (Milner & Goodale, 1995). However, even this theory divorces perception from action by considering the two to be subserved by anatomically different pathways. Indeed, such theories refer to the ventral pathway as "vision for perception" and the dorsal pathway as "vision for action." Given that the processing in the dorsal stream is thought to be unconscious (Milner & Goodale, 2008), this theory emphas...

show abstract

“…Thus, it can reflect the subject's decision criterion. In fact, c is often used synonymously with "criterion" and is therefore commonly thought to reveal cognitive contributions to the decision-making process and involve areas downstream of sensory cortex (McDonald et al, 2000;Grove et al, 2012;Jones et al, 2015;de Gee et al, 2017;Crapse et al, 2018;Luo and Maunsell, 2018;van Vugt et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of Sensory Encoding to Measured Bias

Jin

Glickfeld

2019

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Signal detection theory (SDT) is a widely used theoretical framework that describes how variable sensory signals are integrated with a decision criterion to support perceptual decision-making. SDT provides two key measurements: sensitivity (d) and bias (c), which reflect the separability of decision variable distributions (signal and noise) and the position of the decision criterion relative to optimal, respectively. Although changes in the subject's decision criterion can be reflected in changes in bias, decision criterion placement is not the sole contributor to measured bias. Indeed, neuronal representations of bias have been observed in sensory areas, suggesting that some changes in bias are because of effects on sensory encoding. To directly test whether the sensory encoding process can influence bias, we optogenetically manipulated neuronal excitability in primary visual cortex (V1) in mice of both sexes during either an orientation discrimination or a contrast detection task. Increasing excitability in V1 significantly decreased behavioral bias, whereas decreasing excitability had the opposite effect. To determine whether this change in bias is consistent with effects on sensory encoding, we made extracellular recordings from V1 neurons in passively viewing mice. Indeed, we found that optogenetic manipulation of excitability shifted the neuronal bias in the same direction as the behavioral bias. Moreover, manipulating the quality of V1 encoding by changing stimulus contrast or interstimulus interval also resulted in consistent changes in both behavioral and neuronal bias. Thus, changes in sensory encoding are sufficient to drive changes in bias measured using SDT.

show abstract

Auditory transients do not affect visual sensitivity in discriminating between objective streaming and bouncing events

Cited by 28 publications

References 27 publications

A single auditory tone alters the perception of multiple visual events

A single auditory tone alters the perception of multiple visual events

Action potential influences spatial perception: Evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception

Contribution of Sensory Encoding to Measured Bias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About