Search

The integration of information across sensory modalities is dependent on the spatiotemporal characteristics of the stimuli that are paired. Despite large variation in the distance over which events occur in our environment, relatively little is known regarding how stimulus-observer distance affects multisensory integration. Prior work has suggested that exteroceptive stimuli are integrated over larger temporal intervals in near relative to far space, and that larger multisensory facilitations are evident in far relative to near space. Here, we sought to examine the interrelationship between these previously established distance-related features of multisensory processing. Participants performed an audiovisual simultaneity judgment and redundant target task in near and far space, while audiovisual stimuli were presented at a range of temporal delays (i.e., stimulus onset asynchronies). In line with the previous findings, temporal acuity was poorer in near relative to far space. Furthermore, reaction time to asynchronously presented audiovisual targets suggested a temporal window for fast detection—a range of stimuli asynchronies that was also larger in near as compared to far space. However, the range of reaction times over which multisensory response enhancement was observed was limited to a restricted range of relatively small (i.e., 150 ms) asynchronies, and did not differ significantly between near and far space. Furthermore, for synchronous presentations, these distance-related (i.e., near vs. far) modulations in temporal acuity and multisensory gain correlated negatively at an individual subject level. Thus, the findings support the conclusion that multisensory temporal binding and gain are asymmetrically modulated as a function of distance from the observer, and specifies that this relationship is specific for temporally synchronous audiovisual stimulus presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some classical studies on temporal order judgments (TOJ) suggested a single central process comparing stimulus onsets across modalities. The prevalent current view suggests that there is modality-specific timing estimation followed by a cross-modal stage. If the latter view is correct, TOJ’s may vary depending on stimulus modality. Further, if TOJ is based only on onsets, stimulus duration should be irrelevant. To address these issues, we used both unisensory and multisensory stimuli to test whether unisensory duration processing influences cross-modal TOJ’s. The stimuli were auditory noise bursts, visual squares, and their cross-modal combinations presented at 10, 40 and 500 ms durations, and various stimulus onset asynchronies. Psychometric functions were measured with an identical task in all conditions: On each trial, two stimuli were presented, one to the left, the other to the right of fixation. The participants judged which one started first. TOJ’s were little affected by stimulus duration, implying that they are mainly determined by stimulus onsets. Throughout, the cross-modal just noticeable differences were larger than the unisensory ones. In accordance with the current view, our results suggest that cross-modal TOJ’s require a comparison of timing after modality-specific estimations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A factor that is often not considered in multisensory research is the distance from which information is presented. Interestingly, various studies have shown that the distance at which information is presented can modulate the strength of multisensory interactions. In addition, our everyday multisensory experience in near and far space is rather asymmetrical in terms of retinal image size and stimulus intensity. This asymmetry is the result of the relation between the stimulus-observer distance and its retinal image size and intensity: an object that is further away is generally smaller on the retina as compared to the same object when it is presented nearer. Similarly, auditory intensity decreases as the distance from the observer increases. We investigated how each of these factors alone, and their combination, affected audiovisual integration. Unimodal and bimodal stimuli were presented in near and far space, with and without controlling for distance-dependent changes in retinal image size and intensity. Audiovisual integration was enhanced for stimuli that were presented in far space as compared to near space, but only when the stimuli were not corrected for visual angle and intensity. The same decrease in intensity and retinal size in near space did not enhance audiovisual integration, indicating that these results cannot be explained by changes in stimulus efficacy or an increase in distance alone, but rather by an interaction between these factors. The results are discussed in the context of multisensory experience and spatial uncertainty, and underline the importance of studying multisensory integration in the depth space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although we live in a multisensory world, children's memory has been usually studied concentrating on only one sensory modality at a time. In this study, we investigated how audiovisual encoding affects recognition memory. Children ( n = 114) from three age groups (8, 10 and 12 years) memorized auditory or visual stimuli presented with a semantically congruent, incongruent or non-semantic stimulus in the other modality during encoding. Subsequent recognition memory performance was better for auditory or visual stimuli initially presented together with a semantically congruent stimulus in the other modality than for stimuli accompanied by a non-semantic stimulus in the other modality. This congruency effect was observed for pictures presented with sounds, for sounds presented with pictures, for spoken words presented with pictures and for written words presented with spoken words. The present results show that semantically congruent multisensory experiences during encoding can improve memory performance in school-aged children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multisensory experience can lead to auditory space recalibration. After exposure to discrepant audiovisual stimulation, sound percepts are displaced in space, in the direction of the previous visual stimulation. This study focuses on identifying the factors in recent sensory experience leading to such auditory space shifts. Sequences of five audiovisual pairs were presented, each randomly congruent or discrepant in space. Each sequence was followed by a single auditory trial and two visual trials. In each trial, participants had to identify the perceived stimuli positions. We found that auditory localization is shifted during audiovisual discrepant trials and during subsequent auditory trials, suggesting a recalibration effect. Time did not lead to greater recalibration effects. The last audiovisual trial affects the subsequent auditory shift the most. The number of discrepant trials in a sequence, and the number of consecutive trials in sequence, also correlated with the subsequent auditory shift. To estimate the individual contribution of previously presented trials to the recalibration effect, a best-fitting model was developed to predict the shift in a linear weighted combination of stimulus features: (1) whether matching or discrepant trials occurred in the sequence, (2) total number of discrepant trials, and (3) maximum number of consecutive discrepant trials, (4) whether the last trial was discrepant or not. The selected model consists of a function including as properties the type of stimulus of the last audiovisual sequence trial and the overall probability of mismatching trials in sequence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability of human sensory systems to integrate information across the different modalities provides a wide range of behavioral and perceptual benefits. This integration process is dependent upon the temporal relationship of the different sensory signals, with stimuli occurring close together in time typically resulting in the largest behavior changes. The range of temporal intervals over which such benefits are seen is typically referred to as the temporal binding window (TBW). Given the importance of temporal factors in multisensory integration under both normal and atypical circumstances such as autism and dyslexia, the TBW has been measured with a variety of experimental protocols that differ according to criterion, task, and stimulus type, making comparisons across experiments difficult. In the current study, we attempt to elucidate the role that these various factors play in the measurement of this important construct. The results show a strong effect of stimulus type, with the TBW assessed with speech stimuli being both larger and more symmetrical than that seen using simple and complex non-speech stimuli. These effects are robust across task and statistical criteria and are highly consistent within individuals, suggesting substantial overlap in the neural and cognitive operations that govern multisensory temporal processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of multisensory integration for human behavior and perception is well documented, as is the impact that temporal synchrony has on driving such integration. Thus, the more temporally coincident two sensory inputs from different modalities are, the more likely they will be perceptually bound. This temporal integration process is captured by the construct of the temporal binding window-the range of temporal offsets within which an individual is able to perceptually bind inputs across sensory modalities. Recent work has shown that this window is malleable and can be narrowed via a multisensory perceptual feedback training process. In the current study, we seek to extend this by examining the malleability of the multisensory temporal binding window through changes in unisensory experience. Specifically, we measured the ability of visual perceptual feedback training to induce changes in the multisensory temporal binding window. Visual perceptual training with feedback successfully improved temporal visual processing, and more importantly, this visual training increased the temporal precision across modalities, which manifested as a narrowing of the multisensory temporal binding window. These results are the first to establish the ability of unisensory temporal training to modulate multisensory temporal processes, findings that can provide mechanistic insights into multisensory integration and which may have a host of practical applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In natural environments, human sensory systems work in a coordinated and integrated manner to perceive and respond to external events. Previous research has shown that the spatial and temporal relationships of sensory signals are paramount in determining how information is integrated across sensory modalities, but in ecologically plausible settings, these factors are not independent. In the current study, we provide a novel exploration of the impact on behavioral performance for systematic manipulations of the spatial location and temporal synchrony of a visual-auditory stimulus pair. Simple auditory and visual stimuli were presented across a range of spatial locations and stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), and participants performed both a spatial localization and simultaneity judgment task. Response times in localizing paired visual-auditory stimuli were slower in the periphery and at larger SOAs, but most importantly, an interaction was found between the two factors, in which the effect of SOA was greater in peripheral as opposed to central locations. Simultaneity judgments also revealed a novel interaction between space and time: individuals were more likely to judge stimuli as synchronous when occurring in the periphery at large SOAs. The results of this study provide novel insights into (a) how the speed of spatial localization of an audiovisual stimulus is affected by location and temporal coincidence and the interaction between these two factors and (b) how the location of a multisensory stimulus impacts judgments concerning the temporal relationship of the paired stimuli. These findings provide strong evidence for a complex interdependency between spatial location and temporal structure in determining the ultimate behavioral and perceptual outcome associated with a paired multisensory (i.e., visual-auditory) stimulus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has shown that people with one eye have enhanced spatial vision implying intra-modal compensation for their loss of binocularity. The current experiments investigate whether monocular blindness from unilateral eye enucleation may lead to cross-modal sensory compensation for the loss of one eye. We measured speeded detection and discrimination of audiovisual targets presented as a stream of paired objects and familiar sounds in a group of individuals with monocular enucleation compared to controls viewing binocularly or monocularly. In Experiment 1, participants detected the presence of auditory, visual or audiovisual targets. All participant groups were equally able to detect the targets. In Experiment 2, participants discriminated between the visual, auditory or bimodal (audiovisual) targets. Both control groups showed the Colavita effect, that is, preferential processing of visual over auditory information for the bimodal stimuli. The monocular enucleation group, however, showed no Colavita effect, and further, they demonstrated equal processing of visual and auditory stimuli. This finding suggests a lack of visual dominance and equivalent auditory and visual processing in people with one eye. This may be an adaptive form of sensory compensation for the loss of one eye and could result from recruitment of deafferented visual cortical areas by inputs from other senses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) form a continuum of neurodevelopmental disorders, characterized by deficits in communication and reciprocal social interaction, as well as by repetitive behaviors and restricted interests. Sensory disturbances are also frequently reported in clinical and autobiographical accounts. However, surprisingly few empirical studies have characterized the fundamental features of sensory and multisensory processing in ASD. The current study is structured to test for potential differences in multisensory temporal function in ASD by making use of a temporally dependent, low-level multisensory illusion. In this illusion, the presentation of a single flash of light accompanied by multiple sounds often results in the illusory perception of multiple flashes. By systematically varying the temporal structure of the audiovisual stimuli, a “temporal window” within which these stimuli are likely to be bound into a single perceptual entity can be defined. The results of this study revealed that children with ASD report the flash-beep illusion over an extended range of stimulus onset asynchronies relative to children with typical development, suggesting that children with ASD have altered multisensory temporal function. These findings provide valuable new insights into our understanding of sensory processing in ASD and may hold promise for the development of more sensitive diagnostic measures and improved remediation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The temporal integration of stimuli in different sensory modalities plays a crucial role in multisensory processing. Previous studies using temporal-order judgments to determine the point of subjective simultaneity (PSS) with multisensory stimulation yielded conflicting results on modality-specific delays. While it is known that the relative stimulus intensities of stimuli from different sensory modalities affect their perceived temporal order, we have hypothesized that some of these discrepancies might be explained by a previously overlooked confounding factor, namely the duration of the stimulus. We therefore studied the influence of both factors on the PSS in a spatial-audiovisual temporal-order task. In addition to confirming previous results on the role of stimulus intensity, we report that varying the temporal duration of an audiovisual stimulus pair also affects the perceived temporal order of the auditory and visual stimulus components. Although individual PSS values varied from negative to positive values across participants, we found a systematic shift of PSS values in all participants toward a common attractor value with increasing stimulus duration. This resulted in a stabilization of PSS values with increasing stimulus duration, indicative of a mechanism that compensates individual imbalances between sensory modalities, which might arise from attentional biases toward one modality at short stimulus durations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When presented with auditory, visual, or bimodal audiovisual stimuli in a speeded detection/discrimination task, participants fail to respond to the auditory component of the bimodal targets significantly more often than they fail to respond to the visual component. Signal detection theory (SDT) was used to explore the contributions of perceptual (sensitivity shifts) and decisional (shifts in response criteria) factors to this effect, known as the Colavita visual dominance effect. Participants performed a version of the Colavita task that had been modified to allow for SDT analyses. The participants had to detect auditory and visual targets (presented unimodally or bimodally) at their individually determined 75% detection thresholds. The results showed a significant decrease in participants’ sensitivity to auditory stimuli when presented concurrently with visual stimuli (in the absence of any significant change in their response criterion), suggesting that Colavita visual dominance does not simply reflect a decisional effect, but can be explained, at least in part, as a truly perceptual phenomenon. The decrease in sensitivity (to auditory stimuli) may be attributable to the exogenous capture of participants’ attention by the visual component of the bimodal target, thus leaving fewer attentional resources for the processing of the auditory stimulus. The reduction in auditory sensitivity reported here may be considered an example of crossmodal masking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recognizing a natural object requires one to pool information from various sensory modalities, and to ignore information from competing objects. That the same semantic knowledge can be accessed through different modalities makes it possible to explore the retrieval of supramodal object concepts. Here, object-recognition processes were investigated by manipulating the relationships between sensory modalities, specifically, semantic content, and spatial alignment between auditory and visual information. Experiments were run under realistic virtual environment. Participants were asked to react as fast as possible to a target object presented in the visual and/or the auditory modality and to inhibit a distractor object (go/no-go task). Spatial alignment had no effect on object-recognition time. The only spatial effect observed was a stimulus–response compatibility between the auditory stimulus and the hand position. Reaction times were significantly shorter for semantically congruent bimodal stimuli than would be predicted by independent processing of information about the auditory and visual targets. Interestingly, this bimodal facilitation effect was twice as large as found in previous studies that also used information-rich stimuli. An interference effect was observed (i.e. longer reaction times to semantically incongruent stimuli than to the corresponding unimodal stimulus) only when the distractor was auditory. When the distractor was visual, the semantic incongruence did not interfere with object recognition. Our results show that immersive displays with large visual stimuli may provide large multimodal integration effects, and reveal a possible asymmetry in the attentional filtering of irrelevant auditory and visual information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participants presented with auditory, visual, or bimodal audiovisual stimuli in a speeded discrimination task, fail to respond to the auditory component of bimodal targets significantly more often than to the visual component, a phenomenon known as the Colavita visual dominance effect. Given that spatial and temporal factors have recently been shown to modulate the Colavita effect, the aim of the present study, was to investigate whether semantic congruency also modulates the effect. In the three experiments reported here, participants were presented with a version of the Colavita task in which the stimulus congruency between the auditory and visual components of the bimodal targets was manipulated. That is, the auditory and visual stimuli could refer to the same or different object (in Experiments 1 and 2) or audiovisual speech event (Experiment 3). Surprisingly, semantic/stimulus congruency had no effect on the magnitude of the Colavita effect in any of the experiments, although it exerted a significant effect on certain other aspects of participants’ performance. This finding contrasts with the results of other recent studies showing that semantic/stimulus congruency can affect certain multisensory interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Colavita visual dominance effect refers to the phenomenon whereby participants presented with unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, or bimodal audiovisual stimuli in a speeded discrimination task, fail to respond to the auditory component of bimodal targets significantly more often than they fail to respond to the visual component. The Colavita effect was demonstrated in this study when participants were presented with unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, or bimodal stimuli (in the ratios 40:40:20, Experiment 1; or 33:33:33, Experiment 2), to which they had to respond by pressing an auditory response key, a visual response key, or both response keys. The Colavita effect was also demonstrated when participants had to respond to the bimodal targets using a dedicated third (bimodal) response key (Experiment 3). These results therefore suggest that stimulus probability and the response demands of the task do not contribute significantly to the Colavita effect. In Experiment 4, we investigated what role exogenous attention toward a sensory modality plays in the Colavita effect. A significantly larger Colavita effect was observed when a visual cue preceded the bimodal target than when an auditory cue preceded it. This result suggests that the Colavita visual dominance effect can be partially explained in terms of the greater exogenous attention-capturing qualities of visual versus auditory stimuli. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrating audiovisual cues for simple events is affected when sources are separated in space and time. By contrast, audiovisual perception of speech appears resilient when either spatial or temporal disparities exist. We investigated whether speech perception is sensitive to the combination of spatial and temporal inconsistencies. Participants heard the bisyllable /aba/ while seeing a face produce the incongruent bisyllable /ava/. We tested the level of visual influence over auditory perception when the sound was asynchronous with respect to facial motion (from −360 to +360 ms) and emanated from five locations equidistant to the participant. Although an interaction was observed, it was not related to participants’ perception of synchrony, nor did it indicate a linear relationship between the effect of spatial and temporal discrepancies. We conclude that either the complexity of the signal or the nature of the task reduces reliance on spatial and temporal contiguity for audiovisual speech perception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mismatch negativity (MMN) component of auditory event-related brain potentials can be used as a probe to study the representation of sounds in auditory sensory memory (ASM). Yet it has been shown that an auditory MMN can also be elicited by an illusory auditory deviance induced by visual changes. This suggests that some visual information may be encoded in ASM and is accessible to the auditory MMN process. It is not known, however, whether visual information affects ASM representation for any audiovisual event or whether this phenomenon is limited to specific domains in which strong audiovisual illusions occur. To highlight this issue, we have compared the topographies of MMNs elicited by non-speech audiovisual stimuli deviating from audiovisual standards on the visual, the auditory, or both dimensions. Contrary to what occurs with audiovisual illusions, each unimodal deviant elicited sensory-specific MMNs, and the MMN to audiovisual deviants included both sensory components. The visual MMN was, however, different from a genuine visual MMN obtained in a visual-only control oddball paradigm, suggesting that auditory and visual information interacts before the MMN process occurs. Furthermore, the MMN to audiovisual deviants was significantly different from the sum of the two sensory-specific MMNs, showing that the processes of visual and auditory change detection are not completely independent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Here we describe an EEG study investigating the interactions between multisensory (audio-visual) integration and spatial attention, using oscillatory gamma-band responses (GBRs). The results include a comparison with previously reported event-related potential (ERP) findings from the same paradigm. Unisensory-auditory (A), unisensory-visual (V), and multisensory (AV) stimuli were presented to the left and right hemispaces while subjects attended to a designated side to detect deviant target stimuli in either sensory modality. For attended multisensory stimuli we observed larger evoked GBRs approximately 40–50 ms post-stimulus over medial-frontal brain areas compared with those same multisensory stimuli when unattended. Further analysis indicated that the integration effect and its attentional enhancement may be caused in part by a stimulus-triggered phase resetting of ongoing gamma-band responses. Interestingly, no such early interaction effects (<90 ms) could be found in the ERP waveforms, suggesting that oscillatory GBRs may be more sensitive than ERPs to these early latency attention effects. Moreover, no GBR attention effects could be found for the unisensory auditory or unisensory visual stimuli, suggesting that attention particularly affects the integrative processing of audiovisual stimuli at these early latencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]