scholarly journals A Position of Visual Stimuli Affects Temporal Perception

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 2D3-1-2D3-1
Author(s):  
Reo HOKAZONO ◽  
Keita ISHIBASHI ◽  
Koich IWANAGA
2009 ◽  
Vol 276 (1663) ◽  
pp. 1761-1769 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Burr ◽  
Ottavia Silva ◽  
Guido Marco Cicchini ◽  
Martin S. Banks ◽  
Maria Concetta Morrone

The simultaneity of signals from different senses—such as vision and audition—is a useful cue for determining whether those signals arose from one environmental source or from more than one. To understand better the sensory mechanisms for assessing simultaneity, we measured the discrimination thresholds for time intervals marked by auditory, visual or auditory–visual stimuli, as a function of the base interval. For all conditions, both unimodal and cross-modal, the thresholds followed a characteristic ‘dipper function’ in which the lowest thresholds occurred when discriminating against a non-zero interval. The base interval yielding the lowest threshold was roughly equal to the threshold for discriminating asynchronous from synchronous presentations. Those lowest thresholds occurred at approximately 5, 15 and 75 ms for auditory, visual and auditory–visual stimuli, respectively. Thus, the mechanisms mediating performance with cross-modal stimuli are considerably slower than the mechanisms mediating performance within a particular sense. We developed a simple model with temporal filters of different time constants and showed that the model produces discrimination functions similar to the ones we observed in humans. Both for processing within a single sense, and for processing across senses, temporal perception is affected by the properties of temporal filters, the outputs of which are used to estimate time offsets, correlations between signals, and more.


2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-187
Author(s):  
Nathércia L. Torres ◽  
Carlos dos Santos Luiz ◽  
São Luís Castro ◽  
Susana Silva

It is known that moving visual stimuli (bouncing balls) have an advantage over static visual ones (flashes) in sensorimotor synchronization, such that the former match auditory beeps in driving synchronization while the latter do not. This occurs in beat-based synchronization but not in beat-based purely perceptual tasks, suggesting that the advantage is action-specific. The main goal of this study was to test the advantage of moving over static visual stimuli in a different perceptual timing system – duration-based perception – to determine whether the advantage is action-specific in a broad sense, i.e., if it excludes both beat-based and duration-based perception. We asked a group of participants to perform different tasks with three stimulus types: auditory beeps, visual bouncing balls (moving) and visual flashes (static). First, participants performed a duration-based perception task in which they judged whether intervals were speeding up or slowing down; then they did a synchronization task with isochronous sequences; finally, they performed a beat-based perception task in which they judged whether sequences sounded right or wrong. Bouncing balls outperformed flashes and matched beeps in synchronization. In the duration-based perceptual task, beeps, balls and flashes were equivalent, but in beat-based perception beeps outperformed balls and flashes. Our findings suggest that the advantage of moving over static visual stimuli is grounded on action rather than perception in a broad sense, in that it is absent in both beat-based and duration-based perception.


2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Mehelich ◽  
Rebecca Davis ◽  
Bethany Ingram ◽  
Courtney Wood ◽  
Rodney J. Vogl ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document