Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27121574›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2016

Tactile length contraction as Bayesian inference.

Jonathan Tong, Vy Ngo, Daniel Goldreich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Tactile motion lacks momentum.Psychological research · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jonathan TongDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada;
Vy NgoDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada;
Daniel GoldreichDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and McMaster University Origins Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada goldrd@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-5104-2185

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To perceive, the brain must interpret stimulus-evoked neural activity. This is challenging: The stochastic nature of the neural response renders its interpretation inherently uncertain. Perception would be optimized if the brain used Bayesian inference to interpret inputs in light of expectations derived from experience. Bayesian inference would improve perception on average but cause illusions when stimuli violate expectation. Intriguingly, tactile, auditory, and visual perception are all prone to length contraction illusions, characterized by the dramatic underestimation of the distance between punctate stimuli delivered in rapid succession; the origin of these illusions has been mysterious. We previously proposed that length contraction illusions occur because the brain interprets punctate stimulus sequences using Bayesian inference with a low-velocity expectation. A novel prediction of our Bayesian observer model is that length contraction should intensify if stimuli are made more difficult to localize. Here we report a tactile psychophysical study that tested this prediction. Twenty humans compared two distances on the forearm: a fixed reference distance defined by two taps with 1-s temporal separation and an adjustable comparison distance defined by two taps with temporal separation t ≤ 1 s. We observed significant length contraction: As t was decreased, participants perceived the two distances as equal only when the comparison distance was made progressively greater than the reference distance. Furthermore, the use of weaker taps significantly enhanced participants' length contraction. These findings confirm the model's predictions, supporting the view that the spatiotemporal percept is a best estimate resulting from a Bayesian inference process.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremAdolescentAdultAfferent PathwaysAnalysis of VarianceBrainChoice BehaviorFemaleForearmHumansMalePerceptionPsychomotor PerformancePsychophysicsSensory ThresholdsTime FactorsBayesian inferencesensory saltationsomatosensory psychophysicsspatial illusionuncertainty

Identifiers

PMID27121574
PMCPMC4969385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.