1,721,112 research outputs found
Shared data helps avoid duplicated research || Experimental Psychology
No full textShared data helps avoid duplicated research - a figshare case study of Argiro Vatakis' Experimental Psychology research
Could the unequal number of sensory inputs lead to a crossmodal binding rivalry?
No full textProximal in time and space sensory inputs bind to a robust unified multisensory percept [1], but what happens when unequal numbers of similar (in both high- and low-level factors) sensory inputs are available? Research has shown that binding has differential robustness depending on the sensory inputs and their spatiotemporal relationship within the temporal window of integration. For instance, it has been shown that binding is more resilient to visual leads [2-5] as compared to auditory ones. We, therefore, expect that in the presence of unequal numbers of sensory inputs, the rivalry between those inputs will depend on the binding of the first audiovisual stimulus pair and its temporal proximity with the upcoming unisensory stimulus. That is, strong binding will lead to strong rivalry and weak binding to less intense rivalry. To test this hypothesis, we have used the classic experimental set-up of sound induced visual fission [6, 7] and fusion illusions [8] but with multiple timing presentations. Currently, these set of illusions have been mainly accounted for by auditory dominance/optimality [11], but it is as yet unclear whether multisensory integration may also play a role. The data revealed the existence of two participant groups, those with low performance in the 2-flash condition and strong illusion reports for both fission and fusion illusions and those with the exact opposite pattern. Currently, our data partly cover our hypothesis given that we found evidence of binding rivalry in fission illusion for 25 and 100ms, but not for 50ms stimulus onset asynchronies. References 1. Stein, B. E., Huneycutt, W. S., & Meredith, M. A. (1988). Neurons and behaviour: The same rules of multisensory integration apply. Brain Research, 448, 355-358. 2. Keetels, M., & Vroomen, J. (2012). Perception of synchrony between the senses. In M. M. Murray and M. T. Wallace (Eds.), Frontiers in the neural basis of multisensory processes (pp. 147-177). London: Talor and Francis Group. 3. van Wassenhove, V., Grant, K. W., & Poeppel, D. (2007). Temporal window of integration in auditory-visual speech perception. Neuropsychologia, 45, 598-607. 4. Vatakis, A., & Spence, C. (2007). Crossmodal binding: Evaluating the ‘unity assumption’ using complex audiovisual stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 744-756. 5. Vatakis, A., & Spence, C. (2008). Evaluating the influence of the ‘unity assumption’ on the temporal perception of realistic audiovisual stimuli. Acta Psychologica, 127, 12-23. 6. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408, 788. 7. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2002). Visual illusion induced by sound. Cognitive Brain Research, 14, 147-152. 8. Andersen, T. S., Tiipana, K., & Sams, M. (2004). Factors influencing audiovisual fission and fusion illusions. Cognitive Brain Research, 21, 301-308. 9. Shams, L., Ma, W.J., & Beierholm, U. (2005). Sound-induced flash illusion as an optimal percept. Neuroreport, 16, 1923–1927
Exposure to multisensory and visual moving stimuli enhances processing of non-optimal visual rhythms
No full textExposure to multisensory and visual moving stimuli enhances processing of non-optimal visual rhythm
How do dance experience and actual enactment of the stimulus affect audiovisual temporal integration?
No full text
- …
