Stimulus duration influences perceived simultaneity in audiovisual temporal-order judgment.

Lars T Boenke, Matthias Deliano, Frank W Ohl
Author Information
  1. Lars T Boenke: Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology, 39118 Magdeburg, Germany.

Abstract

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.

References

  1. J Vis. 2005 May 27;5(5):478-92 [PMID: 16097878]
  2. Exp Brain Res. 2008 Feb;185(2):347-52 [PMID: 18236035]
  3. Exp Brain Res. 2005 Dec;167(4):635-40 [PMID: 16175363]
  4. Int J Psychophysiol. 2003 Oct;50(1-2):165-80 [PMID: 14511844]
  5. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Dec;130(4):799-832 [PMID: 11757881]
  6. Hear Res. 2008 Apr;238(1-2):25-38 [PMID: 18077116]
  7. Curr Biol. 2001 Jun 5;11(11):R427-30 [PMID: 11516664]
  8. Percept Mot Skills. 1964 Apr;18:345-52 [PMID: 14166017]
  9. Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jul;181(1):173-81 [PMID: 17431598]
  10. Percept Psychophys. 2008 Aug;70(6):955-68 [PMID: 18717383]
  11. Z Exp Angew Psychol. 1992;39(4):621-45 [PMID: 1295274]
  12. Psychol Sci. 2001 May;12(3):205-12 [PMID: 11437302]
  13. Conscious Cogn. 2000 Sep;9(3):435-56 [PMID: 10993668]
  14. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Jan 7;268(1462):31-8 [PMID: 12123295]
  15. Perception. 1993;22(6):681-9 [PMID: 8255698]
  16. Vision Res. 2001 Jul;41(16):2157-64 [PMID: 11403799]
  17. Percept Psychophys. 2005 Apr;67(3):531-44 [PMID: 16119399]
  18. J Neurosci. 1987 Oct;7(10):3215-29 [PMID: 3668625]
  19. Neurosci Lett. 2007 May 1;417(2):107-11 [PMID: 17408855]
  20. Exp Brain Res. 2008 Mar;185(3):521-9 [PMID: 17962929]
  21. Neuropsychologia. 2009 Jan;47(1):195-203 [PMID: 18760293]
  22. Neuroreport. 2001 Jan 22;12(1):7-10 [PMID: 11201094]
  23. Psychol Res. 1990;52(1):35-8 [PMID: 2377723]
  24. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991 May;17(2):539-50 [PMID: 1830091]
  25. Nat Neurosci. 2003 Jul;6(7):699-700 [PMID: 12819786]
  26. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 May 13;100(10):6151-6 [PMID: 12724527]
  27. Nature. 2003 Feb 27;421(6926):911 [PMID: 12606990]
  28. Nat Neurosci. 2004 Jul;7(7):773-8 [PMID: 15195098]
  29. Exp Brain Res. 2008 Apr;186(4):517-24 [PMID: 18183377]
  30. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1954 Mar 25;142(907):258-67 [PMID: 13167072]
  31. Vision Res. 1993 Jun;33(9):1219-40 [PMID: 8333171]
  32. Am J Psychol. 1961 Mar;74:17-26 [PMID: 13688683]
  33. Vision Res. 1963 May-Jun;61:239-51 [PMID: 14168292]
  34. Percept Mot Skills. 1996 Jun;82(3 Pt 1):707-30 [PMID: 8774006]
  35. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Dec;22(1):32-5 [PMID: 15561498]
  36. J Exp Psychol. 1980 Jun;109(2):160-74 [PMID: 7381367]
  37. Perception. 2004;33(9):1049-60 [PMID: 15560507]
  38. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 8;102(6):2244-7 [PMID: 15668388]
  39. Vision Res. 1974 Sep;14(9):853-69 [PMID: 4422126]
  40. Neurosci Lett. 2005 Jun 24;381(3):217-22 [PMID: 15896473]
  41. Psychol Res. 2004 Aug;68(4):224-36 [PMID: 12827351]
  42. Exp Brain Res. 2003 Sep;152(2):198-210 [PMID: 12879178]
  43. Neurosci Lett. 2004 Mar 4;357(2):119-22 [PMID: 15036589]
  44. Brain Res. 2007 Dec;1186:224-32 [PMID: 18005944]
  45. Curr Biol. 2003 Jul 1;13(13):R519-21 [PMID: 12842029]
  46. Perception. 1991;20(6):715-26 [PMID: 1816531]
  47. Percept Psychophys. 2007 Jul;69(5):744-56 [PMID: 17929697]
  48. Neuropsychologia. 1997 Apr;35(4):421-33 [PMID: 9106271]
  49. PLoS One. 2009 May 27;4(5):e5664 [PMID: 19471644]
  50. Behav Brain Res. 2001 Jun;121(1-2):69-79 [PMID: 11275285]
  51. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Feb;123(2):986-97 [PMID: 18247901]
  52. Brain Res. 2008 Jul 18;1220:208-23 [PMID: 17936252]

MeSH Term

Acoustic Stimulation
Adult
Analysis of Variance
Auditory Perception
Female
Humans
Judgment
Linear Models
Male
Photic Stimulation
Psychophysics
Time Factors
Visual Perception
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stimulusPSSdurationtemporalvaluessensorymodalitiestemporal-orderperceivedstimulidifferentrolemultisensorysimultaneityresultsordermightaudiovisualindividualparticipantstowardincreasingintegrationplayscrucialprocessingPreviousstudiesusingjudgmentsdeterminepointsubjectivestimulationyieldedconflictingmodality-specificdelaysknownrelativeintensitiesaffecthypothesizeddiscrepanciesexplainedpreviouslyoverlookedconfoundingfactornamelythereforestudiedinfluencefactorsspatial-audiovisualtaskadditionconfirmingpreviousintensityreportvaryingpairalsoaffectsauditoryvisualcomponentsAlthoughvariednegativepositiveacrossfoundsystematicshiftcommonattractorvalueresultedstabilizationindicativemechanismcompensatesimbalancesariseattentionalbiasesonemodalityshortdurationsStimulusinfluencesjudgment

Similar Articles

Cited By