» Articles » PMID: 16028031

Simultaneity Constancy: Detecting Events with Touch and Vision

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2005 Jul 20
PMID 16028031
Citations 34
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

What are the consequences of visual and tactile neural processing time differences when combining multisensory information about an event on the body's surface? Visual information about such events reaches the brain at a time that is independent of the location of the event. However, tactile information about such events takes different amounts of time to be processed depending on the distance between the stimulated surface and the brain. To investigate the consequences of these differences, we measured reaction times to touches and lights on different parts of the body and the perceived subjective simultaneity (PSS) for various combinations. The PSSs for pairs of stimuli were predicted by the differences in reaction times. When lights and touches were on different body parts (i.e. the hand and foot) a trend towards compensation for any processing time differences was found, such that simultaneity was veridically perceived. When stimuli were both on the foot, subjects perceived simultaneity when the light came on significantly earlier than the touch, despite similar processing times for these stimuli. When the stimuli were both on the hand, however, there was complete compensation for the significant processing time differences between the light and touch such that simultaneity was correctly perceived, a form of simultaneity constancy. To identify if there was a single simultaneity constancy mechanism or multiple parallel mechanisms, we altered the PSS of an auditory-visual stimulus pair and looked for effects on the PSS of a visual-touch pair. After repeated exposure to a light/sound pair with a fixed time lag between them, there was no effect on the PSS of a touch-light pair, suggesting multiple parallel simultaneity constancy mechanisms.

Citing Articles

Precision-based causal inference modulates audiovisual temporal recalibration.

Li L, Hong F, Badde S, Landy M Elife. 2025; 13.

PMID: 39996594 PMC: 11856930. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.97765.


Precision-based causal inference modulates audiovisual temporal recalibration.

Li L, Hong F, Badde S, Landy M bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39553952 PMC: 11565745. DOI: 10.1101/2024.03.08.584189.


A touching advantage: cross-modal stop-signals improve reactive response inhibition.

Friehs M, Schmalbrock P, Merz S, Dechant M, Hartwigsen G, Frings C Exp Brain Res. 2024; 242(3):599-618.

PMID: 38227008 PMC: 10894768. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-023-06767-7.


Measuring embodiment: A review of methods for prosthetic devices.

Segil J, Roldan L, Graczyk E Front Neurorobot. 2023; 16:902162.

PMID: 36590084 PMC: 9797051. DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2022.902162.


Multi-sensory feedback improves spatially compatible sensori-motor responses.

Dechaux A, Haytam-Mahsoub M, Kitazaki M, Lagarde J, Ganesh G Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):20253.

PMID: 36424417 PMC: 9691706. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-24028-5.


References
1.
Arrighi R, Alais D, Burr D . Perceived timing of first- and second-order changes in vision and hearing. Exp Brain Res. 2005; 166(3-4):445-54. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-2384-9. View

2.
Grossberg S, Grunewald A . Cortical synchronization and perceptual framing. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 9(1):117-32. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1997.9.1.117. View

3.
Kopinska A, Harris L . Simultaneity constancy. Perception. 2004; 33(9):1049-60. DOI: 10.1068/p5169. View

4.
Pandey P, Kunov H, Abel S . Disruptive effects of auditory signal delay on speech perception with lipreading. J Aud Res. 1986; 26(1):27-41. View

5.
Spence C, Squire S . Multisensory integration: maintaining the perception of synchrony. Curr Biol. 2003; 13(13):R519-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0960-9822(03)00445-7. View