Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception.


Journal

PLoS computational biology
ISSN: 1553-7358
Titre abrégé: PLoS Comput Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101238922

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2021
Historique:
received: 26 02 2021
accepted: 26 10 2021
revised: 29 11 2021
pubmed: 16 11 2021
medline: 18 12 2021
entrez: 15 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To obtain a coherent perception of the world, our senses need to be in alignment. When we encounter misaligned cues from two sensory modalities, the brain must infer which cue is faulty and recalibrate the corresponding sense. We examined whether and how the brain uses cue reliability to identify the miscalibrated sense by measuring the audiovisual ventriloquism aftereffect for stimuli of varying visual reliability. To adjust for modality-specific biases, visual stimulus locations were chosen based on perceived alignment with auditory stimulus locations for each participant. During an audiovisual recalibration phase, participants were presented with bimodal stimuli with a fixed perceptual spatial discrepancy; they localized one modality, cued after stimulus presentation. Unimodal auditory and visual localization was measured before and after the audiovisual recalibration phase. We compared participants' behavior to the predictions of three models of recalibration: (a) Reliability-based: each modality is recalibrated based on its relative reliability-less reliable cues are recalibrated more; (b) Fixed-ratio: the degree of recalibration for each modality is fixed; (c) Causal-inference: recalibration is directly determined by the discrepancy between a cue and its estimate, which in turn depends on the reliability of both cues, and inference about how likely the two cues derive from a common source. Vision was hardly recalibrated by audition. Auditory recalibration by vision changed idiosyncratically as visual reliability decreased: the extent of auditory recalibration either decreased monotonically, peaked at medium visual reliability, or increased monotonically. The latter two patterns cannot be explained by either the reliability-based or fixed-ratio models. Only the causal-inference model of recalibration captures the idiosyncratic influences of cue reliability on recalibration. We conclude that cue reliability, causal inference, and modality-specific biases guide cross-modal recalibration indirectly by determining the perception of audiovisual stimuli.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34780469
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008877
pii: PCOMPBIOL-D-21-00370
pmc: PMC8629398
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e1008877

Subventions

Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY008266
Pays : United States

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Q J Exp Psychol. 1974 Feb;26(1):63-71
pubmed: 4814864
Eur J Neurosci. 2010 May;31(10):1721-9
pubmed: 20584175
J Neurosci. 2011 Mar 23;31(12):4607-12
pubmed: 21430160
Exp Brain Res. 2004 Sep;158(2):252-8
pubmed: 15112119
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Apr 30;116(18):9060-9065
pubmed: 30996126
Nat Neurosci. 2004 Jul;7(7):773-8
pubmed: 15195098
Neuron. 2019 Jun 5;102(5):1076-1087.e8
pubmed: 31047778
PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Jul 27;14(7):e1006110
pubmed: 30052625
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
pubmed: 9176953
Neural Comput. 2007 Dec;19(12):3335-55
pubmed: 17970656
Vision Res. 2003 Nov;43(25):2603-13
pubmed: 14552802
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Dec 08;11(12):e1004649
pubmed: 26646312
Psychol Bull. 1980 Nov;88(3):638-67
pubmed: 7003641
PLoS Biol. 2019 Apr 2;17(4):e3000210
pubmed: 30939128
Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jun;179(4):595-606
pubmed: 17225091
Cognition. 2020 Apr;197:104170
pubmed: 32036027
J Vis. 2015;15(5):22
pubmed: 26067540
Elife. 2020 Aug 25;9:
pubmed: 32840213
J Neurosci. 2011 Sep 28;31(39):13949-62
pubmed: 21957256
J Neurosci. 2009 Nov 4;29(44):13809-14
pubmed: 19889992
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003 Jul;113(3):315-27
pubmed: 12835002
Neuroreport. 2001 Jan 22;12(1):7-10
pubmed: 11201094
J Acoust Soc Am. 1971 Feb;49(2):Suppl 2:467+
pubmed: 5541744
Perception. 1985;14(6):721-7
pubmed: 3837873
PLoS One. 2007 Sep 26;2(9):e943
pubmed: 17895984
Percept Mot Skills. 1973 Jun;36(3):1171-84
pubmed: 4711968
J Neurosci. 2009 Dec 9;29(49):15601-12
pubmed: 20007484
J Exp Psychol. 1970 Apr;84(1):141-7
pubmed: 5480918
Curr Biol. 2003 Mar 18;13(6):483-8
pubmed: 12646130
Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261-272
pubmed: 32015543
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2003 Jul;20(7):1391-7
pubmed: 12868643
J Vis. 2009 Nov 13;9(12):7.1-16
pubmed: 20053098
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):869-75
pubmed: 9448253
Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 19;6:24673
pubmed: 27091411
J Neurosci. 2007 Aug 8;27(32):8525-32
pubmed: 17687030
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003 May;16(3):468-78
pubmed: 12706226
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Dec;22(1):32-5
pubmed: 15561498
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 6;12(1):e0169676
pubmed: 28060957
Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 11;9(1):8513
pubmed: 31186503
Exp Brain Res. 2017 Feb;235(2):585-595
pubmed: 27837258
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 06;10(2):e0117178
pubmed: 25658822
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 8;12(9):e0183776
pubmed: 28886035
Curr Biol. 2004 Feb 3;14(3):257-62
pubmed: 14761661
Nat Neurosci. 2000 Jan;3(1):69-73
pubmed: 10607397
Nat Neurosci. 2011 Nov 20;15(1):146-54
pubmed: 22101645
Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1293-313
pubmed: 11800458
Percept Mot Skills. 1973 Dec;37(3):967-79
pubmed: 4764534
J Vis. 2005 Dec 28;5(11):1013-23
pubmed: 16441199
J Vis. 2013 May 08;13(6):
pubmed: 23658374
Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Sep;30(6):1141-50
pubmed: 19735289
J Vis. 2010 Sep 01;10(11):23
pubmed: 20884518
J Neurophysiol. 2012 Oct;108(8):2282-91
pubmed: 22832567
Exp Brain Res. 2002 Dec;147(3):332-43
pubmed: 12428141
Percept Psychophys. 1981 Dec;30(6):557-64
pubmed: 7335452
J Neurosci. 2010 Jun 2;30(22):7714-21
pubmed: 20519546
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2009 Aug;19(4):452-8
pubmed: 19616425
Psychol Sci. 2011 Sep;22(9):1120-6
pubmed: 21771962
PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Aug 05;6(8):
pubmed: 20700493
Nat Commun. 2016 Jun 06;7:11543
pubmed: 27265526
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
pubmed: 9176952
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Nov;9(11):1432-8
pubmed: 17057707
J Vis. 2006 Apr 20;6(5):554-64
pubmed: 16881788
Learn Mem. 2002 Sep-Oct;9(5):268-78
pubmed: 12359836
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2005 Jan-Feb;118(1-2):93-100
pubmed: 15627411
Curr Biol. 2020 May 4;30(9):1726-1732.e7
pubmed: 32197090
Curr Biol. 2002 May 14;12(10):834-7
pubmed: 12015120
Front Integr Neurosci. 2015 May 07;9:34
pubmed: 25999825
J Neurosci. 2012 Mar 14;32(11):3726-35
pubmed: 22423093
Nature. 2002 Jan 24;415(6870):429-33
pubmed: 11807554
Biol Cybern. 2016 Dec;110(6):455-471
pubmed: 27815630
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 04;9(3):e89339
pubmed: 24594578

Auteurs

Fangfang Hong (F)

Department of Psychology, New York University, New York City, New York, United States of America.

Stephanie Badde (S)

Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Michael S Landy (MS)

Department of Psychology, New York University, New York City, New York, United States of America.
Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York City, New York, United States of America.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH