Long integration time for accelerating and decelerating visual, tactile and visuo-tactile stimuli

The perceptual timescape: Perceptual history on the sub-second scale

There is a high-capacity store of brief time span (∼1000 ms) which information enters from perceptual processing, often called iconic memory or sensory memory. It is proposed that a main function of this store is to hold recent perceptual information in a temporally segregated representation, named the perceptual timescape. The perceptual timescape is a continually active representation of change and continuity over time that endows the perceived present with a perceived history. This is accomplished primarily by two kinds of time marking information: time distance information, which marks all items of information in the perceptual timescape according to how far in the past they occurred, and ordinal temporal information, which organises items of information in terms of their temporal order. Added to that is information about connectivity of perceptual objects over time. These kinds of information connect individual items over a brief span of time so as to represent change, persistence, and continuity over time. It is argued that there is a one-way street of information flow from perceptual processing either to the perceived present or directly into the perceptual timescape, and thence to working memory. Consistent with that, the information structure of the perceptual timescape supports postdictive reinterpretations of recent perceptual information. Temporal integration on a time scale of hundreds of milliseconds takes place in perceptual processing and does not draw on information in the perceptual timescape, which is concerned with temporal segregation, not integration.

Audiovisual interaction with rate-varying signals

A task-irrelevant, amplitude-modulating sound influences perception of a size-modulating visual stimulus. To probe the limits of this audiovisual interaction we vary the second temporal derivative of object size and of sound amplitude. In the study's first phase subjects see a visual stimulus size-modulating with f ″ ( x ) > 0, 0, or <0, and judge each one's rate as increasing, constant, or decreasing. Visual stimuli are accompanied by a steady, non-modulated auditory stimulus. The novel combination of multiple stimuli and multi-alternative responses allows subjects' similarity space to be estimated from the stimulus-response confusion matrix. In the study's second phase, rate-varying visual stimuli are presented in concert with auditory stimuli whose second derivative also varied. Subjects identified each visual stimuli as one of the three types, while trying to ignore the accompanying sound. Unlike some previous results with f ″ ( x ) fixed at 0, performance benefits relatively little when visual and auditory stimuli share the same directional change in modulation. However, performance does drop when visual and auditory stimului differ in their directions of rate change. Our task's computational demands may make it particularly vulnerable to the effects of a dynamic task-irrelevant stimulus.

Tactile motion biases visual motion perception in binocular rivalry

There is an ongoing debate whether or not multisensory interactions require awareness of the sensory signals. Static visual and tactile stimuli have been shown to influence each other even in the absence of visual awareness. However, it is unclear if this finding generalizes to dynamic contexts. In the present study, we presented visual and tactile motion stimuli and induced fluctuations of visual awareness by means of binocular rivalry: two gratings which drifted in opposite directions were displayed, one to each eye. One visual motion stimulus dominated and reached awareness while the other visual stimulus was suppressed from awareness. Tactile motion stimuli were presented at random time points during the visual stimulation. The motion direction of a tactile stimulus always matched the direction of one of the concurrently presented visual stimuli. The visual gratings were differently tinted, and participants reported the color of the currently seen stimulus. Tactile motion delayed perceptual switches that ended dominance periods of congruently moving visual stimuli compared to switches during visual-only stimulation. In addition, tactile motion fostered the return to dominance of suppressed, congruently moving visual stimuli, but only if the tactile motion started at a late stage of the ongoing visual suppression period. At later stages, perceptual suppression is typically decreasing. These results suggest that visual awareness facilitates but does not gate multisensory interactions between visual and tactile motion signals.

Low-Level Motion Characteristics Do Not Account for Perceptions of Stream-Bounce Stimuli

The stream-bounce effect refers to a bistable motion stimulus that is interpreted as two targets either “streaming” past or “bouncing” off one another, and the manipulations that bias responses. Directional bias, according to Bertenthal et al., is an account of the effect proposing that low-level motion integration promotes streaming, and its disruption leads to bouncing, and it is sometimes cited either directly in a bottom-up fashion or indirectly under top-down control despite Sekuler and Sekuler finding evidence inconsistent with it. We tested two key aspects of the hypothesis: (a) comparable changes in speed should produce comparable disruptions and lead to similar effects; and (b) speed changes alone should disrupt integration without the need for additional more complex changes of motion. We found that target motion influences stream-bounce perception, but not as directional bias predicts. Our results support Sekuler and Sekuler and argue against the low-level motion signals driving perceptual outcomes in stream-bounce displays (directly or indirectly) and point to higher level inferential processes involving perceptual history and expectation. Directional bias as a mechanism should be abandoned and either another specific bottom-up process must be proposed and tested or consideration should be given to top-down factors alone driving the effect.

Sensitivity to Auditory Velocity Contrast

A natural auditory scene often contains sound moving at varying velocities. Using a velocity contrast paradigm, we compared sensitivity to velocity changes between continuous and discontinuous trajectories. Subjects compared the velocities of two stimulus intervals that moved along a single trajectory, with and without a 1 second inter stimulus interval (ISI). We found thresholds were threefold larger for velocity increases in the instantaneous velocity change condition, as compared to instantaneous velocity decreases or thresholds for the delayed velocity transition condition. This result cannot be explained by the current static "snapshot" model of auditory motion perception and suggest a continuous process where the percept of velocity is influenced by previous history of stimulation.