English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Interactions Between Apparent Motion Rivalry in Vision and Touch

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons83864

Conrad,  V
Research Group Cognitive Neuroimaging, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons84283

Vitello,  MP
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons84112

Noppeney,  U
Research Group Cognitive Neuroimaging, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Conrad, V., Vitello, M., & Noppeney, U. (2012). Interactions Between Apparent Motion Rivalry in Vision and Touch. Psychological Science, 23(8), 940-948. doi:10.1177/0956797612438735.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-B67A-6
Abstract
In multistable perception, the brain alternates between several perceptual explanations of ambiguous sensory signals. It is unknown whether multistable processes can interact across the senses. In the study reported here, we presented subjects with unisensory (visual or tactile), spatially congruent visuotactile, and spatially incongruent visuotactile apparent motion quartets. Congruent stimulation induced pronounced visuotactile interactions, as indicated by increased dominance times for both vision and touch, and an increased percentage bias for the percept already dominant under unisensory stimulation. Thus, the joint evidence from vision and touch stabilizes the more likely perceptual interpretation and thereby decelerates the rivalry dynamics. Yet the temporal dynamics depended also on subjects’ attentional focus and was generally slower for tactile than for visual reports. Our results support Bayesian approaches to perceptual inference, in which the probability of a perceptual interpretation is determined by combining visual, tactile, or visuotactile evidence with modality-specific priors that depend on subjects’ attentional focus. Critically, the specificity of visuotactile interactions for spatially congruent stimulation indicates multisensory rather than cognitive-bias mechanisms.