Abstract
It has recently been demonstrated that the brain rapidly forms an association between concurrently presented sound sequences and visual motion. Once this association has been formed, the associated sound sequence can drive visual motion perception. This phenomenon is known as “sound-contingent visual motion perception” (SCVM). In the present study, we addressed the possibility of a similar association involving touch instead of audition. In a 9-min exposure session, two circles placed side by side were alternately presented to produce apparent motion in a horizontal direction. The onsets of the circle presentations were synchronized with vibrotactile stimulation on two different positions of the forearm. We then quantified pre- and post-exposure perceptual changes using a motion-nulling procedure. Results showed that after prolonged exposure to visuotactile stimuli, the tactile sequence influenced visual motion perception. Notably, this effect was specific to the previously exposed visual field, thus ruling out the possibility of simple response bias. These findings suggest that SCVM-like associations occur, at least to some extent, for the other modality combinations. Furthermore, the effect did not occur when the forearm posture was changed between the exposure and test phases, suggesting that the association is formed after integrating proprioceptive information.
Notes
It should be noted that there are at least two differences between Ernst (2007) and Teramoto et al. (2010). The first is the procedure of the exposure (association) phase. Ernst (2007) used an explicit training technique (i.e., participants received feedback in a training session so that they could explicitly learn the new relationship between visual and tactile features). In contrast, in Teramoto et al. (2010), participants just passively observed audiovisual stimuli for 3 min. The second is (un-)naturalness or arbitrariness of pairing. The pairing used by Ernst (2007) does not exist in the natural environment; the brighter object is not always stiffer than the darker object. In contrast, the pairings used in Teramoto et al. (2010) (i.e., pitch change and visual motion) and that used in our current study (i.e., tactile position change and visual motion) could exist. One of the examples for the former is the Doppler effect (Doppler 1842) and that for the latter is the haptic exploration of the surface of an object by the hand. However, the pitch/tactile position changes used in these studies are arbitrary and unnatural. Specifically, in the natural environment, visual motion is never accompanied by such a big pitch change as that used in Teramoto et al. (2010) (500–2000 Hz and vice versa) or by such a large tactile position change occurring far from the visual stimuli as used in our current study. These differences could affect the difference in duration required to form an association among Ernst (2007), Teramoto et al. (2010), and our current study.
We performed the same two-way ANOVA described in the text after excluding the author’s PSS data. The results did not differ from those including the author’s data. Specifically, only the interaction between phase and tactile condition was significant (phase: F 1,11 = 0.11, p = .747, η 2 G = .002; tactile condition: F 2,22 = 2.25, p = .129, η 2 G = .010; phase × tactile condition: F 2,24 = 5.60, p = .011, η 2 G = .029). A post hoc analysis revealed a main effect of tactile condition only in the post-exposure phase (F 2,44 = 5.80, p = .010, η 2 G = .061). A paired comparison revealed a significant difference between all pairs of the tactile conditions (p < .001).
We performed the same two-way ANOVA after excluding the author’s data. Again, no main or interaction effects were observed (phase: F 1,11 = 0.30, p = .597, η 2 G = .017; tactile condition: F 2,22 = 0.86, p = .435, η 2 G = .007; phase × tactile condition: F 2,22 = 0.88, p = .430, η 2 G = .008).
We performed the same two-way ANOVA after excluding the author’s data. The results were consistent with those described in the text (phase: F 1,11 = 0.82, p = .385, η 2 G = .012; tactile condition: F 2,22 = 1.10, p = .351, η 2 G = .012; phase × tactile condition: F 2,22 = 0.97, p = .396, η 2 G = .017).
References
Azañón E, Camacho K, Soto-Faraco S (2010) Tactile remapping beyond space. Eur J Neurosci 18:1044–1049. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07233.x
Bensmaïa SJ, Killebrew JH, Craig JC (2006) Influence of visual motion on tactile motion perception. J Neurophysiol 96:1625–1637. doi:10.1152/jn.00192.2006
Blake R, Sobel K, James T (2004) Neural synergy between kinetic vision and touch. Psychol Sci 15:397–402. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00691.x
Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756. doi:10.1038/35784
Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:443–446. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357
Craig JC (2006) Visual motion interferes with tactile motion perception. Perception 35:351–367. doi:10.1068/p5334
Doppler CJ (1842) Über das farbige Licht der Doppelsterne und einiger anderer Gestirne des Himmels. In: Versuch einer das Bradley’sche aberrations-theorem als integrirrenden Theil in sich schliessenden allgemeineren Theorie [About the colored light of the double stars and of several other stars in the sky: Attempt to create a general theory including the Bradley aberration theorem as an integrated part]. K. Bohm Association of Sciences, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Ernst MO (2007) Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch. J Vis 7:7. doi:10.1167/7.5.7
Graziano MSA, Gross CG, Taylor CSR, Moore T (2004) A system of multimodal areas in the primate brain. In: Spence C, Driver J (eds) Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 51–67
Guest S, Spence C (2003) What role does multisensory integration play in the visuotactile perception of texture. Int J Psychophysiol 50:63–80. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(03)00125-9
Heed T, Azañón E (2014) Using time to investigate space: a review of tactile temporal order judgements as a window onto spatial processing in touch. Front Psychol 17:76. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00076
Hidaka S, Manaka Y, Teramoto W, Sugita Y, Miyauchi R, Gyoba J, Suzuki Y, Iwaya Y (2009) Alternation of sound location induces visual motion perception of a static object. PLoS ONE 4:e8188. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008188
Hidaka S, Teramoto W, Kobayashi M, Sugita Y (2011) Sound-contingent visual motion aftereffect. BMC Neuroscience 12:44. doi:10.1186/1471-2202-12-44
Kitazawa S (2002) Where conscious sensation take place. Conscious Cogn 11:475–477. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(02)00031-4
Kleiner M, Brainard D, Pelli D, Ingling A, Murray R, Broussard C (2007) What’s new in psychtoolbox-3? Perception 36:1–16. doi:10.1068/v070821
Kobayashi M, Teramoto W, Hidaka S, Sugita Y (2012a) Sound frequency and aural selectivity in sound-contingent visual motion aftereffect. PLoS ONE 7:e36803. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036803
Kobayashi M, Teramoto W, Hidaka S, Sugita Y (2012b) Indiscriminable sounds determine the direction of visual motion. Sci Rep 2:365. doi:10.1038/srep00365
Konkle T, Wang Q, Hayward V, Moore CI (2009) Motion aftereffects transfer between touch and vision. Curr Biol 19:745–750. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.035
Mateef S, Hohnsbein J, Noack T (1985) Dynamic visual capture: apparent auditory motion induced by a moving visual target. Perception 14:721–727. doi:10.1068/p140721
Pelli DG (1997) The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10:437–442. doi:10.1163/156856897X00357
Penfield W, Boldrey E (1937) Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation. Brain 60:389–443. doi:10.1093/brain/60.4.389
Penfield W, Rasmussen T (1950) The cerebral cortex of man; a clinical study of localization of function. Macmillan, New York
Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:594–596. doi:10.1126/science.143.3606.594
Sakamoto S, Teramoto W, Terashima H, Gyoba J (2015) Effect of active self-motion on auditory space perception. Interdiscip Inf Sci 21:167–172. doi:10.4036/iis.2015.A.08
Samad M, Chung AJ, Shams L (2015) Perception of body ownership is driven by Bayesian Sensory inference. PLoS ONE 10:e0117178. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117178
Sasaki T, Kawase T, Nakasato N, Kanno A, Ogura M, Tominaga T, Kobayashi T (2005) Neuromagnetic evaluation of binaural unmasking. NeuroImage 25:684–689. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.11.03
Sekuler R, Sekuler AB, Lau R (1997) Sound alters visual motion perception. Nature 385:308. doi:10.1038/385308a0
Sherrick CE, Rogers R (1966) Apparent haptic movement. Percept Psychophys 1:175–180. doi:10.3758/BF03215780
Soto-Faraco S, Lyons J, Gazzaniga M, Spence C, Kingstone A (2002) The ventriloquist in motion: illusory capture of dynamic information across sensory modalities. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 14:139–146. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00068-X
Spence C (2013) Just how important is spatial coincidence to multisensory integration? Evaluating the spatial rule. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1296:31–49. doi:10.1111/nyas.12121
Spence C, Pavani F, Driver J (2004) Spatial constraints on visual-tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects. Cognit Affect Behav Neurosci 4:148–169. doi:10.3758/CABN.4.2.148
Takeshima H, Suzuki Y, Fujii H, Kumagai M, Ashihara K, Fujimori T, Sone T (2001) Equal-loudness contours measured by the randomized maximum likelihood sequential procedure. Acta Acust United Acust 87:389–399
Takeshima H, Suzuki Y, Ashihara K, Fujimori T (2002) Equal-loudness contours between 1 kHz and 12.5 kHz for 60 and 80 phons. Acoust Sci Technol Tech 23:106–109
Teramoto W, Hidaka S, Sugita Y (2010) Sounds move a static visual object. PLoS ONE 5:e12255. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012255
Teramoto W, Kobayashi M, Hidaka S, Sugita Y (2013) Vision contingent auditory pitch aftereffect. Exp Brain Res 229:97–102. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3596-z
Yamamoto S, Kitazawa S (2001) Sensation at the tips of invisible tools. Nat Neurosci 4:979–980. doi:10.1038/nn721
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by KAKENHI, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (No. 26285160) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teraoka, R., Teramoto, W. Touch-contingent visual motion perception: tactile events drive visual motion perception. Exp Brain Res 235, 903–912 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4850-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4850-y