The combination of vision and touch depends on spatial proximity

Journal of Vision

Volumn 5, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1013-1023

  Gepshtein, Sergei ^a,b   Burge, Johannes ^b   Ernst, Marc O ^c   Banks, Martin S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b RIKEN BRAIN SCIENCE INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

Author keywords

Haptics; Inter sensory integration; Multidimensional classification; Objects; Optimality; Proximity principle; Spatial attention; Vision

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DEPTH PERCEPTION; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MENTAL TASK; SPATIAL DISCRIMINATION; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TACTILE STIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TOUCH; VISION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADULT; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NERVOUS SYSTEM PHYSIOLOGY; ORIENTATION; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PHYSICAL STIMULATION; SIZE PERCEPTION; SPACE PERCEPTION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TOUCH; VISION;

EID: 30544432126     PISSN: 15347362     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/5.11.7     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2004). The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology, 14, 257-262.
2. Bevington, P., & Robinson, D. K. (1992). Data reduction and errror analysis for the physicals sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Bresciani, J. P., Ernst M. O., Drewing, K., Bouyer, G., Maury, V., & Kheddar, A. (2005). Feeling what you hear: Auditory signals can modulate tactile taps perception. Experimental Brain Research, 162, 172-180.
4. Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. (1970). Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5. Duda, R. O., Hart, P. E., & Stork, D. G. (2001). Pattern classification. John Wiley & Sons.
6. Elder, J., & Goldberg, R. M. (2002). Ecological statistics of Gestalt laws for the perceptual organization of contours. Journal of Vision, 2(4), 324-353, http:// journalofvision.org/2/4/5/, doi:10.1167/2.4.5. [Article]
7. Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429-433.
8. Geisler, W. S., Perry, J. S., Super, B. J., & Gallogly, D. P. (2001). Edge co-occurrence in natural images p redicts contour grouping performance. Vision Research, 41, 711-724.
9. Gepshtein, S., & Banks, M. S. (2003). Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception Current Biology, 13, 483-488.
10. Hillis, J. M., Ernst, M. O., Banks, M. S., & Landy, M. S. (2002). Combining sensory information: Mandatory fusion within, but not between senses. Science, 298, 1627-1630.
11. Kanizsa, G. (1979). Organization in vision. New York: Praeger.
12. Krantz, D., Luce, R., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement: Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press.
13. Kubovy, M., Holcombe, A. O, & Wagemans, J. (1998). On the lawfulness of grouping by proximity. Cognitive Psychology, 35, 71-98.
14. Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., Johnston, E. B., & Young, M. (1995). Measuring and modeling of depth cue combination: In defense of weak fusion. Vision Research, 35, 389-412.
15. Macaluso, E., Frith, C., & Driver, J. (2001). A reply to McDonald, J. J., Teder-Sälejärvi, W. A., & Ward, L. M. Multisensory integration and crossmodal attention effects in the human brain. Science, 292, 791a.
16. Martin, D., Fowlkes, C., Tal, D., & Malik, J. (2001). A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International conference on computer vision (pp. 416-425). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
17. Prinzmetal, W., Amiri, H., Allen, K., & Edwards, T. (1998). The phenomenology of attention: Part 1. Color, location, orientation, and "clarity." Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 24, 261-282.
18. Rosenblatt, F. (1961). Principles of neurodynamics: Perceptions and the theory of brain mechanisms. Washington, DC: Spartan Books.
19. Roskies, A. L. (1999). Introduction to the binding problem. Neuron, 24, 7-9.
20. Ruderman, D. L., & Bialek, W. (1994). Statistics of natural images: Scaling in the woods. Physical Review Letters, 73, 814-817.
21. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). Illusions. What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408, 788.
22. Spence, C. , McDonald, J., & Driver, J. (2004). Exogenous spatial-cuing studies of human crossmodal attention and multisensory integration. In C. Spence & J. Driver (Eds.), Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention (pp. 277-320). New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Stevens, K. A. (1983). Surface tilt (the direction of surface slant): A neglected psychophysical variable. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 241-250.
24. Treisman, A., & Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 107-141.
25. van Beers, R. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Haggard, P. (2002). When feeling is more important than seeing in sensorimotor adaptation. Current Biology, 12, 834-837.
26. von der Malsburg, C. (1999). The what and why of binding: The 'modeler's perspective. Neuron, 24, 95-104.
27. Wertheimer, M. (1936). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of gestalt psychology (pp. 71-88). Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. (Original work published in 1923)
28. Yuille, A. L., & Bütlhoff, H. H. (1996). Bayesian decision theory and psychophysics. In D. C. Knill & W. Richards (Eds.), Perception as Bayesian inference (pp. 123-161). Cambridge University Press.