scholarly journals The Timescale of Perceptual Evidence Integration Can Be Adapted to the Environment

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 981-986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ori Ossmy ◽  
Rani Moran ◽  
Thomas Pfeffer ◽  
Konstantinos Tsetsos ◽  
Marius Usher ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lluís Hernández-Navarro ◽  
Ainhoa Hermoso-Mendizabal ◽  
Daniel Duque ◽  
Alexandre Hyafil ◽  
Jaime de la Rocha

It is commonly assumed that, during perceptual decisions, the brain integrates stimulus evidence until reaching a decision, and then performs the response. There are conditions, however (e.g. time pressure), in which the initiation of the response must be prepared in anticipation of the stimulus presentation. It is therefore not clear when the timing and the choice of perceptual responses depend exclusively on evidence accumulation, or when preparatory motor signals may interfere with this process. Here, we find that, in a free reaction time auditory discrimination task in rats, the timing of fast responses does not depend on the stimulus, although the choices do, suggesting a decoupling of the mechanisms of action initiation and choice selection. This behavior is captured by a novel model, the Parallel Sensory Integration and Action Model (PSIAM), in which response execution is triggered whenever one of two processes, Action Initiation or Evidence Accumulation, reaches a bound, while choice category is always set by the latter. Based on this separation, the model accurately predicts the distribution of reaction times when the stimulus is omitted, advanced or delayed. Furthermore, we show that changes in Action Initiation mediates both post-error slowing and a gradual slowing of the responses within each session. Overall, these results extend the standard models of perceptual decision-making, and shed a new light on the interaction between action preparation and evidence accumulation.


Author(s):  
Natasha Warner ◽  
Daniel Brenner ◽  
Jessamyn Schertz ◽  
Andrew Carnie ◽  
Muriel Fisher ◽  
...  

AbstractScottish Gaelic is sometimes described as having nasalized fricatives (/ṽ/ distinctively, and [f̃, x̃, h̃], etc. through assimilation). However, there are claims that it is not aerodynamically possible to open the velum for nasalization while maintaining frication noise. We present aerodynamic data from 14 native Scottish Gaelic speakers to determine how the posited nasalized fricatives in this language are realized. Most tokens demonstrate loss of nasalization, but nasalization does occur in some contexts without aerodynamic conflict, e.g., nasalization with the consonant realized as an approximant, nasalization of [h̃], nasalization on the preceding vowel, or sequential frication and nasalization. Furthermore, a very few tokens do contain simultaneous nasalization and frication with a trade-off in airflow. We also present perceptual evidence showing that Gaelic listeners can hear this distinction slightly better than chance. Thus, instrumental data from one of the few languages in the world described as having nasalized fricatives confirms that the claimed sounds are not made by producing strong nasalization concurrently with clear frication noise. Furthermore, although speakers most often neutralize the nasalization, when they maintain it, they do so through a variety of phonetic mechanisms, even within a single language.


1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Treue ◽  
Richard A. Andersen ◽  
Hiroshi Ando ◽  
Ellen C. Hildreth

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (14) ◽  
pp. 9-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Wittenberg ◽  
F. Bremmer ◽  
T. Wachtler
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document