Two mechanisms underlying the effect of angle of motion direction change on colour-motion asynchrony

Revisiting the color-motion asynchrony

Color-motion asynchrony (CMA) refers to an illusion in which we perceive a change in color earlier than a change in motion direction when the two changes occur simultaneously. This phenomenon may indicate that color is processed earlier than motion in the visual system. However, the very existence of CMA is under question owing to contradictory findings and methodological deficits in previous studies. Here, we used both the motion and color correspondence tasks (experiment 1) and the temporal order judgment (TOJ) task (experiment 2) to re-examine CMA. Colored dots moved in one direction and changed their color/direction at some time, whereas the relative timing between color and direction changes varied across trials. In the correspondence task, participants reported which direction/color of dots with a particular color/direction lasted longer, the one before or after the change? In the TOJ task, participants reported whether the change in color or the change in motion direction occurred earlier. Results indicated that participants perceived the change in color earlier than the change in motion direction in either the motion or color correspondence task, with a stronger asynchrony in the former. In the TOJ task, although participants showed no difference in psychophysical measures, they responded faster when the change in color occurred before (versus after) the change in direction. Drift-diffusion modeling (DDM) revealed a lower decision threshold when the change in color occurred before (versus after) the change in direction, indicating less cautiousness was excised in judgment when the color changed earlier. These results confirmed the veracity of CMA in different tasks and point to the viability of analyzing response times in traditional psychophysical studies.

Probing the Characteristics of Colour-Motion Binding and Its Dependence on Persistent Surface Segregation

Identifying the spatial and temporal characteristics of visual feature binding is a remaining challenge in the science of perception. Within the feature-binding literature, disparate findings have suggested the existence of more than one feature-binding mechanism with differing temporal resolutions. For example, one surprising result is that temporal alternations between two different feature pairings of colour and motion (e.g., orange dots moving left with blue dots moving right) support accurate conjunction discrimination at alternation frequencies of around 10 Hz and greater. However, at lower alternation frequencies around 5 Hz, conjunction discrimination falls to chance. To further investigate this effect, we present two experiments that probe the stimulus characteristics that facilitate or impede feature binding. Using novel manipulations of random dot kinematograms, we identify that facilitating surface representations through temporal integration can enable accurate conjunction discrimination at both intermediate and high alternation frequencies. We also offer a neurally plausible evidence accumulator model to describe these results, removing the need to suggest multiple binding mechanisms acting at different timescales. In effect, we propose a single, flexible binding process, whereby the relatively low temporal resolution for binding features can be circumvented by extracting them from rapidly formed and persistent surface representations.

Effects of Frequency Separation and Diotic/Dichotic Presentations on the Alternation Frequency Limits in Audition Derived from a Temporal Phase Discrimination Task

Temporal phase discrimination is a useful psychophysical task to evaluate how sensory signals, synchronously detected in parallel, are perceptually bound by human observers. In this task two stimulus sequences synchronously alternate between two states (say, A-B-A-B and X-Y-X-Y) in either of two temporal phases (ie A and B are respectively paired with X and Y, or vice versa). The critical alternation frequency beyond which participants cannot discriminate the temporal phase is measured as an index characterizing the temporal property of the underlying binding process. This task has been used to reveal the mechanisms underlying visual and cross-modal bindings. To directly compare these binding mechanisms with those in another modality, this study used the temporal phase discrimination task to reveal the processes underlying auditory bindings. The two sequences were alternations between two pitches. We manipulated the distance between the two sequences by changing intersequence frequency separation, or presentation ears (diotic vs dichotic). Results showed that the alternation frequency limit ranged from 7 to 30 Hz, becoming higher as the intersequence distance decreased, as is the case with vision. However, unlike vision, auditory phase discrimination limits were higher and more variable across participants.

Differences in perceptual latency estimated from judgments of temporal order, simultaneity and duration are inconsistent

Differences in perceptual latency (ΔL) for two stimuli, such as an auditory and a visual stimulus, can be estimated from temporal order judgments (TOJ) and simultaneity judgments (SJ), but previous research has found evidence that ΔL estimated from these tasks do not coincide. Here, using an auditory and a visual stimulus we confirmed this and further show that ΔL as estimated from duration judgments also does not coincide with ΔL estimated from TOJ or SJ. These inconsistencies suggest that each judgment is subject to different processes that bias ΔL in different ways: TOJ might be affected by sensory interactions, a bias associated with the method of single stimuli and an order difficulty bias; SJ by sensory interactions and an asymmetrical criterion bias; duration judgments by an order duration bias.

Perceptual asynchrony for motion

Psychophysical experiments show that two different visual attributes, color and motion, processed in different areas of the visual brain, are perceived at different times relative to each other (Moutoussis and Zeki, 1997a). Here we demonstrate psychophysically that two variants of the same attribute, motion, which have the same temporal structure and are processed in the same visual areas, are also processed asynchronously. When subjects were asked to pair up–down motion of dots in one half of their hemifield with up-right motion in the other, they perceived the two directions of motion asynchronously, with the advantage in favor of up-right motion; when they were asked to pair the motion of white dots moving against a black background with that of red dots moving against an equiluminant green background, they perceived the luminant motion first, thus demonstrating a perceptual advantage of luminant over equiluminant motion. These results were not affected by motion speed or perceived motion “streaks.” We thus interpret these results to reflect the different processing times produced by luminant and equiluminant motion stimuli or by different degrees of motion direction change, thus adding to the evidence that processing time within the visual system is a major determinant of perceptual time.

Asynchrony in visual consciousness and the possible involvement of attention

When subjects are asked to perceptually bind rapidly alternating color and motion stimuli, the pairings they report are different from the ones actually occurring in physical reality. A possible explanation for this misbinding is that the time necessary for perception is different for different visual attributes. Such an explanation is in logical harmony with the fact that the visual brain is characterized by different, functionally specialized systems, with different processing times for each; this type of organization naturally leads to different perceptual times for the corresponding attributes. In the present review, the experimental findings supporting perceptual asynchrony are presented, together with the original theoretical explanation behind the phenomenon and its implication for visual consciousness. Alternative theoretical views and additional experimental facts concerning perceptual misbinding are also reviewed, with a particular emphasis given to the role of attention. With few exceptions, most theories converge on the idea that the observed misbinding reflects a difference in perception times, which is in turn due to differences in neuronal processing times for different attributes within the brain. These processing time differences have been attributed to several different factors, attention included, with the possibility of co-existence between them.

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

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 within-attribute 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 cross-attribute 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.

Audio-tactile superiority over visuo-tactile and audio-visual combinations in the temporal resolution of synchrony perception

To see whether there is a difference in temporal resolution of synchrony perception between audio-visual (AV), visuo-tactile (VT), and audio-tactile (AT) combinations, we compared synchrony-asynchrony discrimination thresholds of human participants. Visual and auditory stimuli were, respectively, a luminance-modulated Gaussian blob and an amplitude-modulated white noise. Tactile stimuli were mechanical vibrations presented to the index finger. All the stimuli were temporally modulated by either single pulses or repetitive-pulse trains. The results show that the temporal resolution of synchrony perception was similar for AV and VT (e.g., approximately 4 Hz for repetitive-pulse stimuli), but significantly higher for AT approximately 10 Hz). Apart from having a higher temporal resolution, however, AT synchrony perception was similar to AV synchrony perception in that participants could select matching features through attention, and a change in the matching-feature attribute had little effect on temporal resolution. The AT superiority in temporal resolution was indicated not only by synchrony-asynchrony discrimination but also by simultaneity judgments. Temporal order judgments were less affected by modality combination than the other two tasks.

Cortical processing and perceived timing

As of yet, it is unclear how we determine relative perceived timing. One controversial suggestion is that timing perception might be related to when analyses are completed in the cortex of the brain. An alternate proposal suggests that perceived timing is instead related to the point in time at which cortical analyses commence. Accordingly, timing illusions should not occur owing to cortical analyses, but they could occur if there were differential delays between signals reaching cortex. Resolution of this controversy therefore requires that the contributions of cortical processing be isolated from the influence of subcortical activity. Here, we have done this by using binocular disparity changes, which are known to be detected via analyses that originate in cortex. We find that observers require longer stimulus exposures to detect small, relative to larger, disparity changes; observers are slower to react to smaller disparity changes and observers misperceive smaller disparity changes as being perceptually delayed. Interestingly, disparity magnitude influenced perceived timing more dramatically than it did stimulus change detection. Our data therefore suggest that perceived timing is both influenced by cortical processing and is shaped by sensory analyses subsequent to those that are minimally necessary for stimulus change perception.