» Articles » PMID: 29955156

Optimal Integration of Actions and Their Visual Effects is Based on Both Online and Prior Causality Evidence

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2018 Jun 30
PMID 29955156
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The brain needs to identify redundant sensory signals in order to integrate them optimally. The identification process, referred to as causal inference, depends on the spatial and temporal correspondence of the incoming sensory signals ('online sensory causality evidence') as well as on prior expectations regarding their causal relation. We here examine whether the same causal inference process underlies spatial integration of actions and their visual consequences. We used a basic cursor-control task for which online sensory causality evidence is provided by the correlated hand and cursor movements, and prior expectations are formed by everyday experience of such correlated movements. Participants made out-and-back movements and subsequently judged the hand or cursor movement endpoints. In one condition, we omitted the online sensory causality evidence by showing the cursor only at the movement endpoint. The integration strength was lower than in conditions where the cursor was visible during the outward movement, but a substantial level of integration persisted. These findings support the hypothesis that the binding of actions and their visual consequences is based on the general mechanism of optimal integration, and they specifically show that such binding can occur even if it is previous experience only that identifies the action consequence.

Citing Articles

Cumulative multisensory discrepancies shape the ventriloquism aftereffect but not the ventriloquism bias.

Kayser C, Park H, Heuer H PLoS One. 2023; 18(8):e0290461.

PMID: 37607201 PMC: 10443876. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290461.


Conscious awareness of a visuo-proprioceptive mismatch: Effect on cross-sensory recalibration.

Hsiao A, Lee-Miller T, Block H Front Neurosci. 2022; 16:958513.

PMID: 36117619 PMC: 9470947. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.958513.


On the Role of Interoception in Body and Object Perception: A Multisensory-Integration Account.

Kirsch W, Kunde W Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022; 18(2):321-339.

PMID: 35994810 PMC: 10018064. DOI: 10.1177/17456916221096138.


Perceptual changes after learning of an arbitrary mapping between vision and hand movements.

Kirsch W, Kunde W Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):11427.

PMID: 35794174 PMC: 9259624. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-15579-8.


Visuo-proprioceptive integration and recalibration with multiple visual stimuli.

Debats N, Heuer H, Kayser C Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):21640.

PMID: 34737371 PMC: 8569193. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00992-2.


References
1.
Roach N, Heron J, McGraw P . Resolving multisensory conflict: a strategy for balancing the costs and benefits of audio-visual integration. Proc Biol Sci. 2006; 273(1598):2159-68. PMC: 1635528. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3578. View

2.
Kawato M . Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1999; 9(6):718-27. DOI: 10.1016/s0959-4388(99)00028-8. View

3.
Debats N, Kingma I, Beek P, Smeets J . Moving the weber fraction: the perceptual precision for moment of inertia increases with exploration force. PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e42941. PMC: 3444459. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042941. View

4.
Shams L, Beierholm U . Causal inference in perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010; 14(9):425-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.001. View

5.
Kording K, Wolpert D . Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature. 2004; 427(6971):244-7. DOI: 10.1038/nature02169. View