ArticleJournal of vision2015
Learning to integrate contradictory multisensory self-motion cue pairings.
Article in Journal of vision, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.PloS one · 2015Trial
- On the Role of Interoception in Body and Object Perception: A Multisensory-Integration Account.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Perceptual changes after learning of an arbitrary mapping between vision and hand movements.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Impact of proprioception on the perceived size and distance of external objects in a virtual action task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Article
- Crossmodal associations modulate multisensory spatial integration.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020Article
- Frequency-dependent integration of auditory and vestibular cues for self-motion perception.Journal of neurophysiology · 2020Article
- Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- Biases in the Visual and Haptic Subjective Vertical Reveal the Role of Proprioceptive/Vestibular Priors in Child Development.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- A review of human sensory dynamics for application to models of driver steering and speed control.Biological cybernetics · 2016Review
- Multisensory effects on somatosensation: a trimodal visuo-vestibular-tactile interaction.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Bayesian Alternation during Tactile Augmentation.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans integrate multisensory information to reduce perceptual uncertainty when perceiving the world and self. Integration fails, however, if a common causality is not attributed to the sensory signals, as would occur in conditions of spatiotemporal discrepancies. In the case of passive self-motion, visual and vestibular cues are integrated according to statistical optimality, yet the extent of cue conflicts that do not compromise this optimality is currently underexplored. Here, we investigate whether human subjects can learn to integrate two arbitrary, but co-occurring, visual and vestibular cues of self-motion. Participants made size comparisons between two successive whole-body rotations using only visual, only vestibular, and both modalities together. The vestibular stimulus provided a yaw self-rotation cue, the visual a roll (Experiment 1) or pitch (Experiment 2) rotation cue. Experimentally measured thresholds in the bimodal condition were compared with theoretical predictions derived from the single-cue thresholds. Our results show that human subjects combine and optimally integrate vestibular and visual information, each signaling self-motion around a different rotation axis (yaw vs. roll and yaw vs. pitch). This finding suggests that the experience of two temporally co-occurring but spatially unrelated self-motion cues leads to inferring a common cause for these two initially unrelated sources of information about self-motion. We discuss our results in terms of specific task demands, cross-modal adaptation, and spatial compatibility. The importance of these results for the understanding of bodily illusions is also discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25589294What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.