Interactions Between Apparent Motion Rivalry in Vision and Touch

Psychological Science

Volumn 23, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 940-948

  Conrad, Verena ^a   Vitello, Marco Pino ^a   Noppeney, Uta ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

apparent motion; Bayesian; consciousness; cross modal integration; motion perception; multisensory integration; multistable perception; perception; perceptual inference; perceptual rivalry; visual perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; TOUCH; VISION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; BAYES THEOREM; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTION PERCEPTION; TOUCH PERCEPTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865059641     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797612438735     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Andrews T. J.,Purves D.Similarities in normal and binocularly rivalrous viewing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 1997;94:9905-9908.
2. Blake R.,Logothetis N. K.Visual competition.Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2002;3:13-21.
3. Blake R.,Sobel K.,James T.Neural synergy between kinetic vision and touch.Psychological Science. 2004;15:397-402.
4. BrascampJ. W.van EeR.NoestA. J.JacobsR. H.van den BergA. V. (2006). The time course of binocular rivalry reveals a fundamental role of noise. Journal of Vision, 6(11), Article 8. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/6/11/8.
5. Bruno N.,Jacomuzzi A.,Bertamini M.,Meyer G. F.A visual-haptic Necker cube reveals temporal constraints on intersensory merging during perceptual exploration.Neuropsychologia. 2007;45:469-475.
6. Carter O.,Konkle T.,Wang Q.,Hayward V.,Moore C. I.Tactile rivalry demonstrated with an ambiguous apparent-motion quartet.Current Biology. 2008;18:1050-1054.
7. ConradV.BartelsA.KleinerM.NoppeneyU. (2010). Audiovisual interactions in binocular rivalry. Journal of Vision, 10(10), Article 27. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/10/10/27.full.
8. Dayan P.A hierarchical model of binocular rivalry.Neural Computation. 1998;10:1119-1135.
9. Ernst M. O.,Bülthoff H. H.Merging the senses into a robust percept.Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2004;8:162-169.
10. Freeman E. D.,Driver J.Subjective appearance of ambiguous structure-from-motion can be driven by objective switches of a separate less ambiguous context.Vision Research. 2006;46:4007-4023.
11. Gengerelli J. A.Apparent motion in relation to homonymous and heteronymous stimulation of the cerebral hemispheres.Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1948;38:592-599.
12. Gershman S. J.,Vul E.,Tenenbaum J. B.Perceptual multistability as Markov chain Monte Carlo inference.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2009;22:611-619.
13. Grossmann J. K.,Dobbins A. C.Differential ambiguity reduces grouping of metastable objects.Vision Research. 2003;43:359-369.
14. Harrar V.,Winter R.,Harris L. R.Visuotactile apparent motion.Perception & Psychophysics. 2008;70:807-817.
15. Hohwy J.,Roepstorff A.,Friston K.Predictive coding explains binocular rivalry: An epistemological review.Cognition. 2008;108:687-701.
16. HupeJ.-M.JoffoL. M.PressnitzerD. (2008). Bistability for audio-visual stimuli: Perceptual decision is modality-specific. Journal of Vision, 8(7), Article 1. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/8/7/1.abstract.
17. Huynh H.,Feldt L. S.Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs.Journal of Educational Statistics. 1976;1:69-82.
18. Kersten D.,Mamassian P.,Yuille A.Object perception as Bayesian inference.Annual Review of Psychology. 2004;55:271-304.
19. KördingK. P.BeierholmU.MaW. J.QuartzS.TenenbaumJ. B.ShamsL. (2007). Causal inference in multisensory perception. PLoS ONE, 2(9), e943. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000943.
20. Leopold D. A.,Logothetis N. K.Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception.Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1999;3:254-264.
21. Levelt W. J.Note on the distribution of dominance times in binocular rivalry.British Journal of Psychology. 1967;58:143-145.
22. Logothetis N. K.,Leopold D. A.,Sheinberg D. L.What is rivaling during binocular rivalry.Nature. 1996;380:621-624.
23. Lumer E. D.,Friston K. J.,Rees G.Neural correlates of perceptual rivalry in the human brain.Science. 1998;280:1930-1934.
24. Lunghi C.,Binda P.,Morrone M. C.Touch disambiguates rivalrous perception at early stages of visual analysis.Current Biology. 2010;20:R143-R144.
25. Lyons G.,Sanabria D.,Vatakis A.,Spence C.The modulation of crossmodal integration by unimodal perceptual grouping: A visuotactile apparent motion study.Experimental Brain Research. 2006;174:510-516.
26. Maier A.,Wilke M.,Logothetis N. K.,Leopold D. A.Perception of temporally interleaved ambiguous patterns.Current Biology. 2003;13:1076-1085.
27. Pillow J.,Rubin N.Perceptual completion across the vertical meridian and the role of early visual cortex.Neuron. 2002;33:805-813.
28. Pressnitzer D.,Hupe J.-M.Temporal dynamics of auditory and visual bistability reveal common principles of perceptual organization.Current Biology. 2006;16:1351-1357.
29. Ramachandran V. S.,Anstis S. M.Perceptual organization in moving patterns.Nature. 1983;304:529-531.
30. Stein B. E.,Meredith M. A.The merging of the senses. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1993:.
31. Tong F.,Meng M.,Blake R.Neural bases of binocular rivalry.Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2006;10:502-511.
32. Warren R. M.,Gregory R. L.An auditory analogue of the visual reversible figure.American Journal of Psychology. 1958;71:612-613.