Visual body form and orientation cues do not modulate visuo-tactile temporal integration


Autoři: Sophie Smit aff001;  Anina N. Rich aff001;  Regine Zopf aff001
Působiště autorů: Perception in Action Research Centre & Department of Cognitive Science, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia aff001;  Centre for Elite Performance, Expertise & Training, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia aff002;  Body Image and Ingestion Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224174

Souhrn

Body ownership relies on spatiotemporal correlations between multisensory signals and visual cues specifying oneself such as body form and orientation. The mechanism for the integration of bodily signals remains unclear. One approach to model multisensory integration that has been influential in the multisensory literature is Bayesian causal inference. This specifies that the brain integrates spatial and temporal signals coming from different modalities when it infers a common cause for inputs. As an example, the rubber hand illusion shows that visual form and orientation cues can promote the inference of a common cause (one’s body) leading to spatial integration shown by a proprioceptive drift of the perceived location of the real hand towards the rubber hand. Recent studies investigating the effect of visual cues on temporal integration, however, have led to conflicting findings. These could be due to task differences, variation in ecological validity of stimuli and/or small samples. In this pre-registered study, we investigated the influence of visual information on temporal integration using a visuo-tactile temporal order judgement task with realistic stimuli and a sufficiently large sample determined by Bayesian analysis. Participants viewed videos of a touch being applied to plausible or implausible visual stimuli for one’s hand (hand oriented plausibly, hand rotated 180 degrees, or a sponge) while also being touched at varying stimulus onset asynchronies. Participants judged which stimulus came first: viewed or felt touch. Results show that visual cues do not modulate visuo-tactile temporal order judgements. This is not in line with the idea that bodily signals indicating oneself influence the integration of multisensory signals in the temporal domain. The current study emphasises the importance of rigour in our methodologies and analyses to advance the understanding of how properties of multisensory events affect the encoding of temporal information in the brain.

Klíčová slova:

Bayesian method – Rubber – Sensory cues – Sensory perception – Touch – Vision – Visual signals


Zdroje

1. Ehrsson HH. The concept of body ownership and its relation to multisensory integration. In: Stein BE, editor. The New Handbook of Multisensory Process. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2012. p. 775–92.

2. Tsakiris M. My body in the brain: a neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(3):703–12. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.034 19819247

3. van den Bos E, Jeannerod M. Sense of body and sense of action both contribute to self-recognition. Cognition. 2002;85(2):177–87. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00100-2 12127698

4. Botvinick M, Cohen J. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature. 1998;391(6669):756. doi: 10.1038/35784 9486643

5. Shimada S, Fukuda K, Hiraki K. Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback. PloS one. 2009;4(7):e6185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006185 19587780

6. Tsakiris M, Haggard P. The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2005;31(1):80. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80 15709864

7. Zopf R, Truong S, Finkbeiner M, Friedman J, Williams MA. Viewing and feeling touch modulates hand position for reaching. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(5):1287–93. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.012 21320514

8. Tsakiris M, Carpenter L, James D, Fotopoulou A. Hands only illusion: multisensory integration elicits sense of ownership for body parts but not for non-corporeal objects. Experimental Brain Research. 2010;204(3):343–52. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-2039-3 19820918

9. Costantini M, Haggard P. The rubber hand illusion: sensitivity and reference frame for body ownership. Consciousness and Cognition. 2007;16(2):229–40. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.001 17317221

10. Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE. That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science. 2004;305(5685):875–7. doi: 10.1126/science.1097011 15232072

11. Calvert G, Spence C, Stein BE. The handbook of multisensory processes. Cambridge: MIT press; 2004.

12. Stein BE, Meredith MA. The merging of the senses. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1993.

13. Shams L, Beierholm UR. Causal inference in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2010;14(9):425–32. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.001 20705502

14. Beierholm UR, Quartz SR, Shams L. Bayesian priors are encoded independently from likelihoods in human multisensory perception. Journal of Vision. 2009;9(5):23-. doi: 10.1167/9.5.23 19757901

15. Körding KP, Beierholm U, Ma WJ, Quartz S, Tenenbaum JB, Shams L. Causal inference in multisensory perception. PLoS one. 2007;2(9):e943. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000943 17895984

16. Wozny DR, Beierholm UR, Shams L. Probability matching as a computational strategy used in perception. PLoS computational biology. 2010;6(8):e1000871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000871 20700493

17. Wozny DR, Beierholm UR, Shams L. Human trimodal perception follows optimal statistical inference. Journal of Vision. 2008;8(3):24-. doi: 10.1167/8.3.24 18484830

18. Shams L, Ma WJ, Beierholm U. Sound-induced flash illusion as an optimal percept. Neuroreport. 2005;16(17):1923–7. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000187634.68504.bb 16272880

19. Bresciani J-P, Dammeier F, Ernst MO. Vision and touch are automatically integrated for the perception of sequences of events. Journal of Vision. 2006;6(5):2-.

20. Helbig HB, Ernst MO. Knowledge about a common source can promote visual—haptic integration. Perception. 2007;36(10):1523–33. doi: 10.1068/p5851 18265835

21. Ernst MO. Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch. Journal of Vision. 2007;7(5):7-. doi: 10.1167/7.5.7 18217847

22. Welch RB, Warren DH. Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin. 1980;88(3):638. 7003641

23. Parise CV, Spence C. ‘When birds of a feather flock together’: synesthetic correspondences modulate audiovisual integration in non-synesthetes. PloS one. 2009;4(5):e5664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005664 19471644

24. Samad M, Chung AJ, Shams L. Perception of body ownership is driven by Bayesian sensory inference. PloS one. 2015;10(2):e0117178. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117178 25658822

25. Holmes NP, Snijders HJ, Spence C. Reaching with alien limbs: Visual exposure to prosthetic hands in a mirror biases proprioception without accompanying illusions of ownership. Perception & Psychophysics. 2006;68(4):685–701.

26. Ide M, Hidaka S. Visual presentation of hand image modulates visuo–tactile temporal order judgment. Experimental Brain Research. 2013;228(1):43–50. doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3535-z 23665748

27. Maselli A, Kilteni K, López-Moliner J, Slater M. The sense of body ownership relaxes temporal constraints for multisensory integration. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:30628. doi: 10.1038/srep30628 27485049

28. Keys RT, Rich AN, Zopf R. Multisensory temporal processing in own-body contexts: plausibility of hand ownership does not improve visuo-tactile asynchrony detection. Experimental Brain Research. 2018;236(5):1431–43. doi: 10.1007/s00221-018-5232-4 29546651

29. Love SA, Petrini K, Cheng A, Pollick FE. A psychophysical investigation of differences between synchrony and temporal order judgments. PloS one. 2013;8(1):e54798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054798 23349971

30. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science. 2011;22(11):1359–66. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632 22006061

31. Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2013;14(5):365–76. doi: 10.1038/nrn3475 23571845

32. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DV, Button KS, Chambers CD, Du Sert NP, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour. 2017;1(1):0021.

33. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):aac4716.

34. Hoover AE, Harris LR. Detecting delay in visual feedback of an action as a monitor of self recognition. Experimental Brain Research. 2012;222(4):389–97. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3224-3 22918608

35. Zopf R, Friedman J, Williams MA. The plausibility of visual information for hand ownership modulates multisensory synchrony perception. Exp Brain Res. 2015;233(8):2311–21. doi: 10.1007/s00221-015-4300-2 25980691

36. Rouder JN. Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2014;21(2):301–8.

37. Dienes Z. Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014;5:781. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781 25120503

38. Lee MD, Wagenmakers E-J. Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.

39. Jeffreys H. Theory of probability. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1939. 179–92 p.

40. Kleiner M, Brainard D, Pelli D, Ingling A, Murray R, Broussard C. What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3. Perception. 2007;36(14):1.

41. Brainard DH, Vision S. The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision. 1997;10:433–6. 9176952

42. Prins N, Kingdom FAA. Palamedes: Matlab routines for analyzing psychophysical data. 2009.

43. Vroomen J, Keetels M. Perception of intersensory synchrony: a tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 2010;72(4):871–84.

44. van de Schoot R, Depaoli S. Bayesian analyses: Where to start and what to report. European Health Psychologist. 2014;16(2):75–84.

45. Wagenmakers E-J, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HL, Kievit RA. An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7(6):632–8. doi: 10.1177/1745691612463078 26168122

46. Wagenmakers E-J, Marsman M, Jamil T, Ly A, Verhagen J, Love J, et al. Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2018;25(1):35–57.

47. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016.

48. Banissy MJ, Kadosh RC, Maus GW, Walsh V, Ward J. Prevalence, characteristics and a neurocognitive model of mirror-touch synaesthesia. Experimental Brain Research. 2009;198(2–3):261–72. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-1810-9 19412699

49. Brang D, Williams LE, Ramachandran VS. Grapheme-color synesthetes show enhanced crossmodal processing between auditory and visual modalities. Cortex. 2012;48(5):630–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.06.008 21763646

50. Newell FN, Mitchell KJ. Multisensory integration and cross-modal learning in synaesthesia: A unifying model. Neuropsychologia. 2016;88:140–50. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.07.026 26231979

51. Ward J, Schnakenberg P, Banissy MJ. The relationship between mirror-touch synaesthesia and empathy: New evidence and a new screening tool. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 2018;35(5–6):314–32. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2018.1457017 29770733

52. Muncer SJ, Ling J. Psychometric analysis of the empathy quotient (EQ) scale. Personality and individual differences. 2006;40(6):1111–9.

53. Gronau QF, Ly A, Wagenmakers E-J. Informed Bayesian t-tests. The American Statistician. 2019(just-accepted):1–13.

54. Igarashi Y, Kitagawa N, Spence C, Ichihara S. Assessing the influence of schematic drawings of body parts on tactile discrimination performance using the crossmodal congruency task. Acta Psychologica. 2007;124(2):190–208. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.03.004 16759624

55. Igarashi Y, Kitagawa N, Ichihara S. Vision of a pictorial hand modulates visual-tactile interactions. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. 2004;4(2):182–92.

56. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine. 2005;2(8):e124. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 16060722

57. Pavani F, Spence C, Driver J. Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science. 2000;11(5):353–9. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00270 11228904

58. Igarashi Y, Kimura Y, Spence C, Ichihara S. The selective effect of the image of a hand on visuotactile interactions as assessed by performance on the crossmodal congruency task. Experimental Brain Research. 2008;184(1):31–8. doi: 10.1007/s00221-007-1076-z 17726605

59. Zopf R, Savage G, Williams MA. Crossmodal congruency measures of lateral distance effects on the rubber hand illusion. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(3):713–25. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.10.028 19913040

60. Spence C, Pavani F, Maravita A, Holmes NP. Multi-sensory interactions. Haptic Rendering: Foundations, Algorithms, and Applications. 2008:21–52.

61. Motyka P, Litwin P. Proprioceptive precision and degree of visuo-proprioceptive discrepancy do not influence the strength of the rubber hand illusion. Perception. 2019;48(9):882–91. doi: 10.1177/0301006619865189 31362576

62. Keetels M, Vroomen J. Temporal recalibration to tactile–visual asynchronous stimuli. Neuroscience letters. 2008;430(2):130–4. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2007.10.044 18055112

63. Vatakis A, Spence C. Audiovisual synchrony perception for music, speech, and object actions. Brain research. 2006;1111(1):134–42. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.05.078 16876772

64. Vatakis A, Spence C. Crossmodal binding: Evaluating the “unity assumption” using audiovisual speech stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics. 2007;69(5):744–56.

65. Vatakis A, Ghazanfar AA, Spence C. Facilitation of multisensory integration by the “unity effect” reveals that speech is special. Journal of Vision. 2008;8(9):14-. doi: 10.1167/8.9.14 18831650

66. Vatakis A, Spence C. Evaluating the influence of the ‘unity assumption’on the temporal perception of realistic audiovisual stimuli. Acta Psychologica. 2008;127(1):12–23. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.12.002 17258164

67. Radeau M. Auditory-visual spatial interaction and modularity. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition. 1994;13(1):3–51 11540554

68. Spence C, Baddeley R, Zampini M, James R, Shore DI. Multisensory temporal order judgments: When two locations are better than one. Perception & Psychophysics. 2003;65(2):318–28.

69. Spence C, Shore DI, Klein RM. Multisensory prior entry. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2001;130(4):799.

70. Zampini M, Shore DI, Spence C. Audiovisual temporal order judgments. Experimental Brain Research. 2003;152(2):198–210. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1536-z 12879178


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12