Occluded motion alters event perception

Sound-modulations of visual motion perception implicate the cortico-vestibular brain

A widely used example of the intricate (yet poorly understood) intertwining of multisensory signals in the brain is the audiovisual bounce inducing effect (ABE). This effect presents two identical objects moving along the azimuth with uniform motion and towards opposite directions. The perceptual interpretation of the motion is ambiguous and is modulated if a transient (sound) is presented in coincidence with the point of overlap of the two objects' motion trajectories. This phenomenon has long been written-off to simple attentional or decision-making mechanisms, although the neurological underpinnings for the effect are not well understood. Using behavioural metrics concurrently with event-related fMRI, we show that sound-induced modulations of motion perception can be further modulated by changing motion dynamics of the visual targets. The phenomenon engages the posterior parietal cortex and the parieto-insular-vestibular cortical complex, with a close correspondence of activity in these regions with behaviour. These findings suggest that the insular cortex is engaged in deriving a probabilistic perceptual solution through the integration of multisensory data.

Disambiguating the Stream/Bounce Illusion With Inference

The ‘stream/bounce’ illusion refers to the perception of an ambiguous visual display in which two discs approach each other on a collision course. The display can be seen as two discs streaming through each other or bouncing off each other. Which perception dominates, may be influenced by a brief transient, usually a sound, presented around the time of simulated contact. Several theories have been proposed to account for the switching in dominance based on sensory processing, attention and cognitive inference, but a universally applicable, parsimonious explanation has not emerged. We hypothesized that only cognitive inference would be influenced by the perceptual history of the display. We rendered the display technically unambiguous by vertically offsetting the targets’ trajectories and manipulated their history by allowing the objects to switch from one trajectory to the other up to four times before the potential collision point. As the number of switches increased, the number of ‘bounce’ responses also increased. These observations show that expectancy is a critical factor in determining whether a bounce or streaming is perceived and may form the basis for a universal explanation of instances of the stream/bounce illusion.

The Posture of Putting One's Palms Together Modulates Visual Motion Event Perception

We investigated the effect of an observer's hand postures on visual motion perception using the stream/bounce display. When two identical visual objects move across collinear horizontal trajectories toward each other in a two-dimensional display, observers perceive them as either streaming or bouncing. In our previous study, we found that when observers put their palms together just below the coincidence point of the two objects, the percentage of bouncing responses increased, mainly depending on the proprioceptive information from their own hands. However, it remains unclear if the tactile or haptic (force) information produced by the postures mostly influences the stream/bounce perception. We solved this problem by changing the tactile and haptic information on the palms of the hands. Experiment 1 showed that the promotion of bouncing perception was observed only when the posture of directly putting one's palms together was used, while there was no effect when a brick was sandwiched between the participant's palms. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the strength of force used when putting the palms together had no effect on increasing bounce perception. Our findings indicate that the hands-induced bounce effect derives from the tactile information produced by the direct contact between both palms.

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.