Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch

Journal of Vision

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 2007, Pages

  Ernst, Marc O ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

^b NONE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bayesian models of perception; Cue integration; Statistical learning; Touch; Vision

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BAYES THEOREM; DIFFERENTIAL THRESHOLD; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; TOUCH; VISION;

ADULT; BAYES THEOREM; CUES; DIFFERENTIAL THRESHOLD; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; TOUCH; VISION;

EID: 34347387723     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/7.5.7     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Adams, W. J., Banks, M. S., & van Ee, R. (2001). Adaptation to three-dimensional distortions in human vision. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 1063-1064. [PubMed] [Article]
2. Adams, W. J., Graf, E. W.,&Ernst, M. O. (2004). Experience can change the Flight-from-above' prior. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1057-1058. [PubMed] [Article]
3. Alais, D., & Burr, D. (2004). The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology, 14, 257-262. [PubMed] [Article]
4. Bresciani, J. P., Dammeier, F., & Ernst, M. O. (2006). Vision and touch are automatically integrated for the perception of sequences of events. Journal of Vision, 6(5):2, 554-564, http://journalofvision.org/6/5/2/, doi:10.1167/6/5/2. [PubMed] [Article]
5. Bülthoff, H. H., & Mallot, H. A. (1988). Integration of depth modules: Stereo and shading. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Optics and image science, 5, 1749-1758. [PubMed]
6. Burge, J., Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2007). The statistical determinants of adaptation rate in human reaching. Submitted for publication.
7. Clark, J. J., & Yuille, A. L. (1990). Data fusion for sensory information processing systems. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Modality-constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 24-39. [PubMed]
9. Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2006). Statistical learning within and between modalities: Pitting abstract against stimulus-specific representations, Psychological Science, 17, 905-912. [PubMed]
10. Ernst, M. O. (2005). A Bayesian view on multimodal cue integration (chapter 6). In G. Knoblich, M. Grosjean, I. Thornton, & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), Human body perception from the inside out (pp. 105-131). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
11. Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429-433. [PubMed]
12. Ernst, M. O., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2004). Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 162-169. [PubMed]
13. Ghahramani, Z., Wolpert, D. M., & Jordan, M. I. (1997). Computational models of sensorimotor integration. In P. G. Morasso & V. Sanguineti (Eds.), Self- organization, computational maps and motor control (pp. 117-147). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
14. Haijiang, Q., Saunders, J. A., Stone, R. W., & Backus, B. T. (2006). Demonstration of cue recruitment: Change in visual appearance by means of Pavlovian conditioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 483-486. [PubMed] [Article]
15. Helbig, H. B., & Ernst, M. O. (2007). Optimal integration of shape information from vision and touch. Experimental Brain Research, 179, 595-606. [PubMed]
16. 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. [PubMed]
17. Hillis, J. M., Watt, S. J., Landy, M. S., & Banks, M. S. (2004). Slant from texture and disparity cues: Optimal cue combination. Journal of Vision, 4(12):1, 967-992, http://journalofvision.org/4/ 12/1/, doi:10.1167/4.12.1. [PubMed] [Article]
18. Howard, I. P., & Rogers, B. J. (2002). Interactions between depth cues. In I. P. Howard & B. J. Rogers (Eds.), Seeing in depth (vol. 2, pp. 469-493). Toronto: I. Porteous.
19. Jacobs, R. A. (2002). What determines visual cue reliability? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 345-350. [PubMed]
20. Jäkel, F., & Ernst, M. O. (2003). Learning to combine arbitrary signals from vision and touch. In I. Oakley, S. O. Modhrain, & F. Newell (Eds.), Eurohaptics 2003 Conference Proceedings (pp. 276-290). Dublin 2, Ireland: Trinity College Dublin and Media Lab Europe, Trinity College.
21. Knill, D. C. (2003). Mixture models and the probabilistic structure of depth cues. Vision Research, 43, 831-854. [PubMed]
22. Knill, D. C. (2007). Robust cue integration: A Bayesian model and evidence from cue-conflict studies with stereoscopic and figure cues to slant. Journal of Vision, 7(7):5 1-24, http://journalofvision.org/ 7/7/5/, doi:10.1167/7.7.5. [PubMed] [Article]
23. Knill, D. C., & Saunders, J. A. (2003). Do humans optimally integrate stereo and texture information for judgments of surface slant? Vision Research, 43, 2539-2558. [PubMed]
24. Landy, M. S., & Kojima, H. (2001). Ideal cue combination for localizing texture defined edges. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Optics, image science, and vision, 18, 2307-2320. [PubMed]
25. Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., Johnston, E. B., & Young, M. (1995). Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: In defense of weak fusion. Vision Research, 35, 389-412. [PubMed]
26. Mamassian, P., Landy, M., & Maloney, L. T. (2002). Bayesian modelling of visual perception. In R. P. N. Rao, B. A. Olshausen, & M. S. Lewicki (Eds.), Probabilistic models of the brain (pp. 13-36). Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.
27. Roach, N. W., Heron, J., & McGraw, P. V. (2006). Resolving multisensory conflict: A strategy for balancing the costs and benefits of audio-visual integration. Proceedings of the The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273, 2159-2168. [PubMed] [Article]
28. Shams, L., Ma, W. J., & Beierholm, U. (2005). Sound-induced flash illusion as an optimal percept. Neuroreport, 16, 1923-1927. [PubMed]
29. Versfeld, N. J., Dai, H., & Green, D. M. (1996). Optimum decision rules for the oddity task. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 10-21. [PubMed]
30. von Helmholtz, H. (1867). Handbuch der physiologischen Optik. Leipzig, Germany: Voss.
31. Wichmann, F. A., & Hill, N. J. (2001). The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1293-1313. [PubMed]
32. Yuille, A. L., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1996). Bayesian decision theory and psychophysics. In D. C. Knill & W. Richards (Eds.), Perception as Bayesian inference (pp. 123-161). New York: Cambridge University Press.