Bouncing or streaming? Exploring the influence of auditory cues on the interpretation of ambiguous visual motion.

Daniel Sanabria, Angel Correa, Juan Lupiáñez, Charles Spence
Author Information
  1. Daniel Sanabria: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD, UK. daniel.sanabria@psy.ox.ac.uk

Abstract

When looking at two identical objects moving toward each other on a two-dimensional visual display, two different events can be perceived: the objects can either be seen to bounce off each other, or else to stream through one another. Previous research has shown that the large bias normally seen toward the streaming percept can be modulated by the presentation of an auditory event at the moment of coincidence. However, previous behavioral research on this crossmodal effect has always relied on subjective report. In the present experiment, we used a novel experimental design to provide a more objective/implicit measure of the effect of an auditory cue on visual motion perception. In our study, two disks moved toward each other, with the point of coincidence hidden behind an occluder. When emerging from behind the occluder, the disks (one red, the other blue) could either follow the same trajectory (streaming) or else move in the opposite direction (bouncing). Participants made speeded discrimination responses regarding the side from which one of the disks emerged from behind the occluder. Participants responded more rapidly on streaming trials when no sound was presented and on bouncing trials when the sound was presented at the moment of coincidence. These results provide the first empirical demonstration of the auditory modulation of an ambiguous visual motion display using an implicit/objective behavioral measure of perception.

References

  1. Psychol Bull. 1967 May;67(5):356-67 [PMID: 6047176]
  2. Psychol Sci. 2002 Nov;13(6):493-8 [PMID: 12430831]
  3. Perception. 1993;22(2):193-207 [PMID: 8474844]
  4. Curr Biol. 2000 Jun 15;10(12):731-4 [PMID: 10873810]
  5. Nat Neurosci. 2003 Feb;6(2):190-5 [PMID: 12496761]
  6. Perception. 1998;27(9):1041-54 [PMID: 10341934]
  7. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Oct;26(5):1583-90 [PMID: 11039486]
  8. Perception. 1999;28(4):415-32 [PMID: 10664783]
  9. Vision Res. 2000;40(8):925-30 [PMID: 10720663]
  10. Percept Psychophys. 2001 Jan;63(1):16-28 [PMID: 11304012]
  11. Percept Psychophys. 1997 Jan;59(1):1-22 [PMID: 9038403]
  12. Nature. 1997 Jan 23;385(6614):308 [PMID: 9002513]
  13. Psychol Sci. 2001 Mar;12(2):109-16 [PMID: 11340918]

MeSH Term

Acoustic Stimulation
Adolescent
Adult
Analysis of Variance
Female
Humans
Male
Motion Perception
Photic Stimulation

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0visualauditorytwotowardcanonestreamingcoincidencemotiondisksbehindoccluderobjectsdisplayeitherseenelseresearchmomentbehavioraleffectprovidemeasureperceptionbouncingParticipantstrialssoundpresentedambiguouslookingidenticalmovingtwo-dimensionaldifferenteventsperceived:bouncestreamanotherPreviousshownlargebiasnormallyperceptmodulatedpresentationeventHoweverpreviouscrossmodalalwaysreliedsubjectivereportpresentexperimentusednovelexperimentaldesignobjective/implicitcuestudymovedpointhiddenemergingredbluefollowtrajectorymoveoppositedirectionmadespeededdiscriminationresponsesregardingsideemergedrespondedrapidlyresultsfirstempiricaldemonstrationmodulationusingimplicit/objectiveBouncingstreaming?Exploringinfluencecuesinterpretation

Similar Articles

Cited By