Differential effects of the temporal and spatial distribution of audiovisual stimuli on cross-modal spatial recalibration

Quantifying accuracy and precision from continuous response data in studies of spatial perception and crossmodal recalibration

The ability to detect the absolute location of sensory stimuli can be quantified with either error-based metrics derived from single-trial localization errors or regression-based metrics derived from a linear regression of localization responses on the true stimulus locations. Here we tested the agreement between these two approaches in estimating accuracy and precision in a large sample of 188 subjects who localized auditory stimuli from different azimuthal locations. A subsample of 57 subjects was subsequently exposed to audiovisual stimuli with a consistent spatial disparity before performing the sound localization test again, allowing us to additionally test which of the different metrics best assessed correlations between the amount of crossmodal spatial recalibration and baseline localization performance. First, our findings support a distinction between accuracy and precision. Localization accuracy was mainly reflected in the overall spatial bias and was moderately correlated with precision metrics. However, in our data, the variability of single-trial localization errors (variable error in error-based metrics) and the amount by which the eccentricity of target locations was overestimated (slope in regression-based metrics) were highly correlated, suggesting that intercorrelations between individual metrics need to be carefully considered in spatial perception studies. Secondly, exposure to spatially discrepant audiovisual stimuli resulted in a shift in bias toward the side of the visual stimuli (ventriloquism aftereffect) but did not affect localization precision. The size of the aftereffect shift in bias was at least partly explainable by unspecific test repetition effects, highlighting the need to account for inter-individual baseline differences in studies of spatial learning.

Development and experience-dependence of multisensory spatial processing

Multisensory spatial processes are fundamental for efficient interaction with the world. They include not only the integration of spatial cues across sensory modalities, but also the adjustment or recalibration of spatial representations to changing cue reliabilities, crossmodal correspondences, and causal structures. Yet how multisensory spatial functions emerge during ontogeny is poorly understood. New results suggest that temporal synchrony and enhanced multisensory associative learning capabilities first guide causal inference and initiate early coarse multisensory integration capabilities. These multisensory percepts are crucial for the alignment of spatial maps across sensory systems, and are used to derive more stable biases for adult crossmodal recalibration. The refinement of multisensory spatial integration with increasing age is further promoted by the inclusion of higher-order knowledge.

Different time scales of common-cause evidence shape multisensory integration, recalibration and motor adaptation

Perceptual coherence in the face of discrepant multisensory signals is achieved via the processes of multisensory integration, recalibration and sometimes motor adaptation. These supposedly operate on different time scales, with integration reducing immediate sensory discrepancies and recalibration and motor adaptation reflecting the cumulative influence of their recent history. Importantly, whether discrepant signals are bound during perception is guided by the brains' inference of whether they originate from a common cause. When combined, these two notions lead to the hypothesis that the time scales on which integration and recalibration (or motor adaptation) operate are associated with different time scales of evidence about a common cause underlying two signals. We tested this prediction in a well-established visuo-motor paradigm, in which human participants performed visually guided hand movements. The kinematic correlation between hand and cursor movements indicates their common origin, which allowed us to manipulate the common-cause evidence by titrating this correlation. Specifically, we dissociated hand and cursor signals during individual movements while preserving their correlation across the series of movement endpoints. Following our hypothesis, this manipulation reduced integration compared with a condition in which visual and proprioceptive signals were perfectly correlated. In contrast, recalibration and motor adaption were not affected by this manipulation. This supports the notion that multisensory integration and recalibration deal with sensory discrepancies on different time scales guided by common-cause evidence: Integration is prompted by local common-cause evidence and reduces immediate discrepancies, whereas recalibration and motor adaptation are prompted by global common-cause evidence and reduce persistent discrepancies.

Repeated exposure to either consistently spatiotemporally congruent or consistently incongruent audiovisual stimuli modulates the audiovisual common-cause prior

To estimate an environmental property such as object location from multiple sensory signals, the brain must infer their causal relationship. Only information originating from the same source should be integrated. This inference relies on the characteristics of the measurements, the information the sensory modalities provide on a given trial, as well as on a cross-modal common-cause prior: accumulated knowledge about the probability that cross-modal measurements originate from the same source. We examined the plasticity of this cross-modal common-cause prior. In a learning phase, participants were exposed to a series of audiovisual stimuli that were either consistently spatiotemporally congruent or consistently incongruent; participants’ audiovisual spatial integration was measured before and after this exposure. We fitted several Bayesian causal-inference models to the data; the models differed in the plasticity of the common-source prior. Model comparison revealed that, for the majority of the participants, the common-cause prior changed during the learning phase. Our findings reveal that short periods of exposure to audiovisual stimuli with a consistent causal relationship can modify the common-cause prior. In accordance with previous studies, both exposure conditions could either strengthen or weaken the common-cause prior at the participant level. Simulations imply that the direction of the prior-update might be mediated by the degree of sensory noise, the variability of the measurements of the same signal across trials, during the learning phase.

Auditory-visual interactions in egocentric distance perception: Ventriloquism effect and aftereffect

This study describes data on auditory-visual integration and visually-guided adaptation of auditory distance perception using the ventriloquism effect (VE) and ventriloquism aftereffect (VAE). In an experiment, participants judged egocentric distance of interleaved auditory or auditory-visual stimuli with the auditory component located from 0.7 to 2.04 m in front of listeners in a real reverberant environment. The visual component of auditory-visual stimuli was displaced 30% closer (V-closer), 30% farther (V-farther), or aligned (V-aligned) with respect to the auditory component. The VE and VAE were measured in auditory and auditory-visual trials, respectively. Both effects were approximately independent of target distance when expressed in logarithmic units. The VE strength, defined as a difference of V-misaligned and V-aligned response bias, was approximately 72% of the auditory-visual disparity regardless of the visual-displacement direction, while the VAE was stronger in the V-farther (44%) than the V-closer (31%) condition. The VAE persisted to post-adaptation auditory-only blocks of trials, although it was diminished. The rates of build-up/break-down of the VAE were asymmetrical, with slower adaptation in the V-closer condition. These results suggest that auditory-visual distance integration is independent of the direction of induced shift, while the re-calibration is stronger and faster when evoked by more distant visual stimuli.

Multiple spatial reference frames underpin perceptual recalibration to audio-visual discrepancies

In dynamic multisensory environments, the perceptual system corrects for discrepancies arising between modalities. For instance, in the ventriloquism aftereffect (VAE), spatial disparities introduced between visual and auditory stimuli lead to a perceptual recalibration of auditory space. Previous research has shown that the VAE is underpinned by multiple recalibration mechanisms tuned to different timescales, however it remains unclear whether these mechanisms use common or distinct spatial reference frames. Here we asked whether the VAE operates in eye- or head-centred reference frames across a range of adaptation timescales, from a few seconds to a few minutes. We developed a novel paradigm for selectively manipulating the contribution of eye- versus head-centred visual signals to the VAE by manipulating auditory locations relative to either the head orientation or the point of fixation. Consistent with previous research, we found both eye- and head-centred frames contributed to the VAE across all timescales. However, we found no evidence for an interaction between spatial reference frames and adaptation duration. Our results indicate that the VAE is underpinned by multiple spatial reference frames that are similarly leveraged by the underlying time-sensitive mechanisms.

Comment on "Differential Effects of the Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Audiovisual Stimuli on Cross-Modal Spatial Recalibration"

Bruns et al. (2020) provide new research that suggests that the ventriloquism after-effect (VAE: an enduring shift of the perceived location of a sound toward a previously seen visual stimulus) and multisensory enhancement (ME: an improvement in the precision of sound localization) may dissociate depending on the rate at which exposure stimuli are presented. They reported that the VAE, but not the ME, was diminished when exposure stimuli were presented at 10 Hz rather than at 2 Hz. To the authors, this suggested that different neural structures underlie the VAE and ME. In our view, however, this needs to be tested more extensively because alternative and simpler explanations have not yet been checked.