Temporal causal inference with stochastic audiovisual sequences

Alpha Oscillations and Temporal Binding Windows in Perception-A Critical Review and Best Practice Guidelines

An intriguing question in cognitive neuroscience is whether alpha oscillations shape how the brain transforms the continuous sensory inputs into distinct percepts. According to the alpha temporal resolution hypothesis, sensory signals arriving within a single alpha cycle are integrated, whereas those in separate cycles are segregated. Consequently, shorter alpha cycles should be associated with smaller temporal binding windows and higher temporal resolution. However, the evidence supporting this hypothesis is contentious, and the neural mechanisms remain unclear. In this review, we first elucidate the alpha temporal resolution hypothesis and the neural circuitries that generate alpha oscillations. We then critically evaluate study designs, experimental paradigms, psychophysics, and neurophysiological analyses that have been employed to investigate the role of alpha frequency in temporal binding. Through the lens of this methodological framework, we then review evidence from between-subject, within-subject, and causal perturbation studies. Our review highlights the inherent interpretational ambiguities posed by previous study designs and experimental paradigms and the extensive variability in analysis choices across studies. We also suggest best practice recommendations that may help to guide future research. To establish a mechanistic role of alpha frequency in temporal parsing, future research is needed that demonstrates its causal effects on the temporal binding window with consistent, experimenter-independent methods.

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.

Multisensory correlation computations in the human brain identified by a time-resolved encoding model

Neural mechanisms that arbitrate between integrating and segregating multisensory information are essential for complex scene analysis and for the resolution of the multisensory correspondence problem. However, these mechanisms and their dynamics remain largely unknown, partly because classical models of multisensory integration are static. Here, we used the Multisensory Correlation Detector, a model that provides a good explanatory power for human behavior while incorporating dynamic computations. Participants judged whether sequences of auditory and visual signals originated from the same source (causal inference) or whether one modality was leading the other (temporal order), while being recorded with magnetoencephalography. First, we confirm that the Multisensory Correlation Detector explains causal inference and temporal order behavioral judgments well. Second, we found strong fits of brain activity to the two outputs of the Multisensory Correlation Detector in temporo-parietal cortices. Finally, we report an asymmetry in the goodness of the fits, which were more reliable during the causal inference task than during the temporal order judgment task. Overall, our results suggest the existence of multisensory correlation detectors in the human brain, which explain why and how causal inference is strongly driven by the temporal correlation of multisensory signals.

Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception

To obtain a coherent perception of the world, our senses need to be in alignment. When we encounter misaligned cues from two sensory modalities, the brain must infer which cue is faulty and recalibrate the corresponding sense. We examined whether and how the brain uses cue reliability to identify the miscalibrated sense by measuring the audiovisual ventriloquism aftereffect for stimuli of varying visual reliability. To adjust for modality-specific biases, visual stimulus locations were chosen based on perceived alignment with auditory stimulus locations for each participant. During an audiovisual recalibration phase, participants were presented with bimodal stimuli with a fixed perceptual spatial discrepancy; they localized one modality, cued after stimulus presentation. Unimodal auditory and visual localization was measured before and after the audiovisual recalibration phase. We compared participants’ behavior to the predictions of three models of recalibration: (a) Reliability-based: each modality is recalibrated based on its relative reliability—less reliable cues are recalibrated more; (b) Fixed-ratio: the degree of recalibration for each modality is fixed; (c) Causal-inference: recalibration is directly determined by the discrepancy between a cue and its estimate, which in turn depends on the reliability of both cues, and inference about how likely the two cues derive from a common source. Vision was hardly recalibrated by audition. Auditory recalibration by vision changed idiosyncratically as visual reliability decreased: the extent of auditory recalibration either decreased monotonically, peaked at medium visual reliability, or increased monotonically. The latter two patterns cannot be explained by either the reliability-based or fixed-ratio models. Only the causal-inference model of recalibration captures the idiosyncratic influences of cue reliability on recalibration. We conclude that cue reliability, causal inference, and modality-specific biases guide cross-modal recalibration indirectly by determining the perception of audiovisual stimuli.

Audiovisual recalibration of spatial perception occurs when we receive audiovisual stimuli with a systematic spatial discrepancy. The brain must determine to which extent both modalities should be recalibrated. In this study, we scrutinized the mechanisms the brain employs to do so. To this aim, we conducted a classical audiovisual recalibration experiment in which participants were adapted to spatially discrepant audiovisual stimuli. The visual component of the bimodal stimulus was either less, equally, or more reliable than the auditory component. We measured the amount of recalibration by computing the difference between participants’ unimodal localization responses before and after the audiovisual recalibration. Across participants, the influence of visual reliability on auditory recalibration varied fundamentally. We compared three models of recalibration. Only a causal-inference model of recalibration captured the diverse influences of cue reliability on recalibration found in our study, this model is also able to replicate contradictory results found in previous studies. In this model, recalibration depends on the discrepancy between a sensory measurement and the perceptual estimate for the same sensory modality. Cue reliability, perceptual biases, and the degree to which participants infer that the two cues come from a common source govern audiovisual perception and therefore audiovisual recalibration.

Perceptual Inference, Learning, and Attention in a Multisensory World

Adaptive behavior in a complex, dynamic, and multisensory world poses some of the most fundamental computational challenges for the brain, notably inference, decision-making, learning, binding, and attention. We first discuss how the brain integrates sensory signals from the same source to support perceptual inference and decision-making by weighting them according to their momentary sensory uncertainties. We then show how observers solve the binding or causal inference problem-deciding whether signals come from common causes and should hence be integrated or else be treated independently. Next, we describe the multifarious interplay between multisensory processing and attention. We argue that attentional mechanisms are crucial to compute approximate solutions to the binding problem in naturalistic environments when complex time-varying signals arise from myriad causes. Finally, we review how the brain dynamically adapts multisensory processing to a changing world across multiple timescales.

Monkeys and humans implement causal inference to simultaneously localize auditory and visual stimuli

The environment is sampled by multiple senses, which are woven together to produce a unified perceptual state. However, optimally unifying such signals requires assigning particular signals to the same or different underlying objects or events. Many prior studies (especially in animals) have assumed fusion of cross-modal information, whereas recent work in humans has begun to probe the appropriateness of this assumption. Here we present results from a novel behavioral task in which both monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and humans localized visual and auditory stimuli and reported their perceived sources through saccadic eye movements. When the locations of visual and auditory stimuli were widely separated, subjects made two saccades, while when the two stimuli were presented at the same location they made only a single saccade. Intermediate levels of separation produced mixed response patterns: a single saccade to an intermediate position on some trials or separate saccades to both locations on others. The distribution of responses was well described by a hierarchical causal inference model that accurately predicted both the explicit "same vs. different" source judgments as well as biases in localization of the source(s) under each of these conditions. The results from this task are broadly consistent with prior work in humans across a wide variety of analogous tasks, extending the study of multisensory causal inference to nonhuman primates and to a natural behavioral task with both a categorical assay of the number of perceived sources and a continuous report of the perceived position of the stimuli.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We developed a novel behavioral paradigm for the study of multisensory causal inference in both humans and monkeys and found that both species make causal judgments in the same Bayes-optimal fashion. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of behavioral causal inference in animals, and this cross-species comparison lays the groundwork for future experiments using neuronal recording techniques that are impractical or impossible in human subjects.

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

Beats are among the basic units of perceptual experience. Produced by regular, intermittent stimulation, beats are most commonly associated with audition, but the experience of a beat can result from stimulation in other modalities as well. We studied the robustness of visual, vibrotactile, and bimodal signals as sources of beat perception. Subjects attempted to discriminate between pulse trains delivered at 3 Hz or at 6 Hz. To investigate signal robustness, we intentionally degraded signals on two-thirds of the trials using temporal-domain noise. On these trials, inter-pulse intervals (IPIs) were stochastic, perturbed independently from the nominal IPI by random samples from zero-mean Gaussian distributions with different variances. These perturbations produced directional changes in the IPIs, which either increased or decreased the likelihood of confusing the two pulse rates. In addition to affording an assay of signal robustness, this paradigm made it possible to gauge how subjects' judgments were influenced by successive IPIs. Logistic regression revealed a strong primacy effect: subjects' decisions were disproportionately influenced by a trial's initial IPIs. Response times and parameter estimates from drift-diffusion modeling showed that information accumulates more rapidly with bimodal stimulation than with either unimodal stimulus alone. Analysis of error rates within each condition suggested consistently optimal decision making, even with increased IPI variability. Finally, beat information delivered by vibrotactile signals proved just as robust as information conveyed by visual signals, confirming vibrotactile stimulation's potential as a communication channel.

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

Visual input constantly recalibrates auditory spatial representations. Exposure to isochronous audiovisual stimuli with a fixed spatial disparity typically results in a subsequent auditory localization bias (ventriloquism aftereffect, VAE), whereas exposure to spatially congruent audiovisual stimuli improves subsequent auditory localization (multisensory enhancement, ME). Here, we tested whether cross-modal recalibration is affected by the stimulation rate and/or the distribution of audiovisual spatial disparities during training. Auditory localization was tested before and after participants were exposed either to audiovisual stimuli with a constant spatial disparity of 13.5° (VAE) or to spatially congruent audiovisual stimulation (ME). In a between-subjects design, audiovisual stimuli were presented either at a low frequency of 2 Hz, as used in previous studies of VAE and ME, or intermittently at a high frequency of 10 Hz, which mimics long-term potentiation (LTP) protocols and which was found superior in eliciting unisensory perceptual learning. Compared to low-frequency stimulation, VAE was reduced after high-frequency stimulation, whereas ME occurred regardless of the stimulation protocol. In two additional groups, we manipulated the spatial distribution of audiovisual stimuli in the low-frequency condition. Stimuli were presented with varying audiovisual disparities centered around 13.5° (VAE) or 0° (ME). Both VAE and ME were equally strong compared to a fixed spatial relationship of 13.5° or 0°, respectively. Taken together, our results suggest (a) that VAE and ME represent partly dissociable forms of learning and (b) that auditory representations adjust to the overall stimulus statistics rather than to a specific audiovisual spatial relationship.

Multisensory neural processing: from cue integration to causal inference

Neurophysiological studies of multisensory processing have largely focused on how the brain integrates information from different sensory modalities to form a coherent percept. However, in the natural environment, an important extra step is needed: the brain faces the problem of causal inference, which involves determining whether different sources of sensory information arise from the same environmental cause, such that integrating them is advantageous Behavioral and computational studies have provided a strong foundation for studying causal inference, but studies of its neural basis have only recently been undertaken. This review focuses on recent advances regarding how the brain infers the causes of sensory inputs and uses this information to make robust perceptual estimates.

Causal inference accounts for heading perception in the presence of object motion

The brain infers our spatial orientation and properties of the world from ambiguous and noisy sensory cues. Judging self-motion (heading) in the presence of independently moving objects poses a challenging inference problem because the image motion of an object could be attributed to movement of the object, self-motion, or some combination of the two. We test whether perception of heading and object motion follows predictions of a normative causal inference framework. In a dual-report task, subjects indicated whether an object appeared stationary or moving in the virtual world, while simultaneously judging their heading. Consistent with causal inference predictions, the proportion of object stationarity reports, as well as the accuracy and precision of heading judgments, depended on the speed of object motion. Critically, biases in perceived heading declined when the object was perceived to be moving in the world. Our findings suggest that the brain interprets object motion and self-motion using a causal inference framework.