Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.

It has been shown that the Central Nervous System (CNS) integrates visual and inertial information in heading estimation for congruent multisensory stimuli and stimuli with small discrepancies. Multisensory information should, however, only be integrated when the cues are redundant. Here, we investi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ksander N de Winkel, Mikhail Katliar, Heinrich H Bülthoff
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4418840?pdf=render
id doaj-ecb8cf80c78c402db015a42212f0eaac
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ecb8cf80c78c402db015a42212f0eaac2020-11-24T21:23:43ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01105e012710410.1371/journal.pone.0127104Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.Ksander N de WinkelMikhail KatliarHeinrich H BülthoffIt has been shown that the Central Nervous System (CNS) integrates visual and inertial information in heading estimation for congruent multisensory stimuli and stimuli with small discrepancies. Multisensory information should, however, only be integrated when the cues are redundant. Here, we investigated how the CNS constructs an estimate of heading for combinations of visual and inertial heading stimuli with a wide range of discrepancies. Participants were presented with 2s visual-only and inertial-only motion stimuli, and combinations thereof. Discrepancies between visual and inertial heading ranging between 0-90° were introduced for the combined stimuli. In the unisensory conditions, it was found that visual heading was generally biased towards the fore-aft axis, while inertial heading was biased away from the fore-aft axis. For multisensory stimuli, it was found that five out of nine participants integrated visual and inertial heading information regardless of the size of the discrepancy; for one participant, the data were best described by a model that explicitly performs causal inference. For the remaining three participants the evidence could not readily distinguish between these models. The finding that multisensory information is integrated is in line with earlier findings, but the finding that even large discrepancies are generally disregarded is surprising. Possibly, people are insensitive to discrepancies in visual-inertial heading angle because such discrepancies are only encountered in artificial environments, making a neural mechanism to account for them otiose. An alternative explanation is that detection of a discrepancy may depend on stimulus duration, where sensitivity to detect discrepancies differs between people.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4418840?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ksander N de Winkel
Mikhail Katliar
Heinrich H Bülthoff
spellingShingle Ksander N de Winkel
Mikhail Katliar
Heinrich H Bülthoff
Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Ksander N de Winkel
Mikhail Katliar
Heinrich H Bülthoff
author_sort Ksander N de Winkel
title Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.
title_short Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.
title_full Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.
title_fullStr Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.
title_full_unstemmed Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.
title_sort forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2015-01-01
description It has been shown that the Central Nervous System (CNS) integrates visual and inertial information in heading estimation for congruent multisensory stimuli and stimuli with small discrepancies. Multisensory information should, however, only be integrated when the cues are redundant. Here, we investigated how the CNS constructs an estimate of heading for combinations of visual and inertial heading stimuli with a wide range of discrepancies. Participants were presented with 2s visual-only and inertial-only motion stimuli, and combinations thereof. Discrepancies between visual and inertial heading ranging between 0-90° were introduced for the combined stimuli. In the unisensory conditions, it was found that visual heading was generally biased towards the fore-aft axis, while inertial heading was biased away from the fore-aft axis. For multisensory stimuli, it was found that five out of nine participants integrated visual and inertial heading information regardless of the size of the discrepancy; for one participant, the data were best described by a model that explicitly performs causal inference. For the remaining three participants the evidence could not readily distinguish between these models. The finding that multisensory information is integrated is in line with earlier findings, but the finding that even large discrepancies are generally disregarded is surprising. Possibly, people are insensitive to discrepancies in visual-inertial heading angle because such discrepancies are only encountered in artificial environments, making a neural mechanism to account for them otiose. An alternative explanation is that detection of a discrepancy may depend on stimulus duration, where sensitivity to detect discrepancies differs between people.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4418840?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT ksanderndewinkel forcedfusioninmultisensoryheadingestimation
AT mikhailkatliar forcedfusioninmultisensoryheadingestimation
AT heinrichhbulthoff forcedfusioninmultisensoryheadingestimation
_version_ 1725991480146788352