Feeling the Beat (and Seeing It, Too): Vibrotactile, Visual, and Bimodal Rate Discrimination

Keep your finger on the pulse: Better rate perception and gap detection with vibrotactile compared to visual stimuli

Important characteristics of the environment can be represented in the temporal pattern of sensory stimulation. In two experiments, we compared accuracy of temporal processing by different modalities. Experiment 1 examined binary categorization of rate for visual (V) or vibrotactile (T) stimulus pulses presented at either 4 or 6 Hz. Inter-pulse intervals were either constant or variable, perturbed by random Gaussian variates. Subjects categorized the rate of T pulse sequences more accurately than V sequences. In V conditions only, subjects disproportionately tended to mis-categorize 4-Hz pulse rates, for all but the most variable sequences. In Experiment 2, we compared gap detection thresholds across modalities, using the same V and T pulses from Experiment 1, as well as with bimodal (VT) pulses. Visual gap detection thresholds were larger (3[Formula: see text]) than tactile thresholds. Additionally, performance with VT stimuli seemed to be nearly completely dominated by their T components. Together, these results suggest (i) that vibrotactile temporal acuity surpasses visual temporal acuity, and (ii) that vibrotactile stimulation has considerable, untapped potential to convey temporal information like that needed for eyes-free alerting signals.

The same phase creates a unique visual rhythm unifying moving elements in time

Attention can be selectively tuned to particular features at different spatial locations or objects. The deployment of attention can be guided by properties, such as color, orientation, and so forth, as guiding features. What might be such guiding features for visual stimuli under dynamic rhythmic conditions? We asked specifically what might be the parameters that attract attention when perceiving a visual rhythm. We used a visual search paradigm, in which a dynamic search display consisted of vertically "bouncing balls" with regular rhythms. The search target was defined by a unique visual rhythm (i.e., with either a shorter or longer period) among rhythmic distractors sharing an identical period. We modulated amplitudes and phases of the distractor balls systematically. The results showed a crucial factor of the phase, not the amplitude. If the phase is violated, the target suddenly "pops out" as an "oddball," showing an efficient parallel search. The findings indicate in general the essential role of the phase in conjunction with amplitude and period for visual rhythm perception. Furthermore, a higher saliency of moving objects with a higher frequency component has also been disclosed.

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.

Perceptual timing precision with vibrotactile, auditory, and multisensory stimuli

The growing use of vibrotactile signaling devices makes it important to understand the perceptual limits on vibrotactile information processing. To promote that understanding, we carried out a pair of experiments on vibrotactile, auditory, and bimodal (synchronous vibrotactile and auditory) temporal acuity. On each trial, subjects experienced a set of isochronous, standard intervals (400 ms each), followed by one interval of variable duration (400 ± 1-80 ms). Intervals were demarcated by short vibrotactile, auditory, or bimodal pulses. Subjects categorized the timing of the last interval by describing the final pulse as either "early" or "late" relative to its predecessors. In Experiment 1, each trial contained three isochronous standard intervals, followed by an interval of variable length. In Experiment 2, the number of isochronous standard intervals per trial varied, from one to four. Psychometric modeling revealed that vibrotactile stimulation produced poorer temporal discrimination than either auditory or bimodal stimulation. Moreover, auditory signals dominated bimodal sensitivity, and inter-individual differences in temporal discriminability were reduced with bimodal stimulation. Additionally, varying the number of isochronous intervals in a trial failed to improve temporal sensitivity in either modality, suggesting that memory played a key role in judgments of interval duration.