Experimental Brain Research

, 198:49 | Cite as

Auditory dominance over vision in the perception of interval duration

  • David Burr
  • Martin S. Banks
  • Maria Concetta Morrone
Research Article

Abstract

The “ventriloquist effect” refers to the fact that vision usually dominates hearing in spatial localization, and this has been shown to be consistent with optimal integration of visual and auditory signals (Alais and Burr in Curr Biol 14(3):257–262, 2004). For temporal localization, however, auditory stimuli often “capture” visual stimuli, in what has become known as “temporal ventriloquism”. We examined this quantitatively using a bisection task, confirming that sound does tend to dominate the perceived timing of audio-visual stimuli. The dominance was predicted qualitatively by considering the better temporal localization of audition, but the quantitative fit was less than perfect, with more weight being given to audition than predicted from thresholds. As predicted by optimal cue combination, the temporal localization of audio-visual stimuli was better than for either sense alone.

Keywords

Time perception Vision Audition Multi-modal perception 

References

  1. Alais D, Burr D (2004) The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Curr Biol 14(3):257–262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen TS, Tiippana K, Sams M (2004) Factors influencing audiovisual fission and fusion illusions. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 21(3):301–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrighi R, Alais D, Burr D (2006) Perceptual synchrony of audiovisual streams for natural and artificial motion sequences. J Vis 6(3):260–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aschersleben G, Bertelson P (2003) Temporal ventriloquism: crossmodal interaction on the time dimension. 2. Evidence from sensorimotor synchronization. Int J Psychophysiol 50(1–2):157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger TD, Martelli M, Pelli DG (2003) Flicker flutter: is an illusory event as good as the real thing? J Vis 3(6):406–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke JJ, Yuille AL (1990) Data fusion for sensory information processing. Kluwer Academic, BostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon NF, Spitz L (1980) The detection of auditory visual desynchrony. Perception 9(6):719–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. In: Monographs on statistics and applied probability, vol 57. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415(6870):429–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fendrich R, Corballis PM (2001) The temporal cross-capture of audition and vision. Percept Psychophys 63(4):719–725PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gebhard JW, Mowbray GH (1959) On discriminating the rate of visual flicker and auditory flutter. Am J Psychol 72:521–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghahramani Z, Wolpert DM, Jordan MI (1997) Computational models of sensorimotor integration. In: Morasso PG, Sanguineti V (eds) Self-organization, computational maps and motor control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 117–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mamassian P (2008) Overconfidence in an objective anticipatory motor task. Psychol Sci 19(6):601–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mateeff S, Hohnsbein J, Noack T (1985) Dynamic visual capture: apparent auditory motion induced by a moving visual target. Perception 14(6):721–727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morein-Zamir S, Soto-Faraco S, Kingstone A (2003) Auditory capture of vision: examining temporal ventriloquism. Cogn Brain Res 17(15):4–163Google Scholar
  16. Parise C, Spence C (2008) Synesthetic congruency modulates the temporal ventriloquism effect. Neurosci Lett 442(3):257–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pick HL, Warren DH, Hay JC (1969) Sensory conflict in judgements of spatial direction. Percept Psychophys 6:203–205Google Scholar
  18. Radeau M (1994) Auditory-visual spatial interaction and modularity. Curr Psychol Cogn 13(1):3–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rose D, Summers J (1995) Duration illusions in a train of visual stimuli. Perception 24(10):1177–1187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sekuler AB, Sekuler R (1999) Collisions between moving visual targets: what controls alternative ways of seeing an ambiguous display? Perception 28(4):415–432Google Scholar
  21. Shams L, Kamitani Y, Shimojo S (2000) Illusions. What you see is what you hear. Nature 408(6814):788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shams L, Kamitani Y, Thompson S, Shimojo S (2001) Sound alters visual evoked potentials in humans. Neuroreport 12(17):3849–3852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shipley T (1964) Auditory flutter-driving of visual flicker. Science 145:1328–1330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stekelenburg JJ, Vroomen J (2009) Neural correlates of audiovisual motion capture. Exp Brain Res (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Summerfield Q, McGrath M (1984) Detection and resolution of audio-visual incompatibility in the perception of vowels. Q J Exp Psychol A 36(1):51–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Tse P, Intriligator J, Rivest J, Cavanagh P (2004) Attention and the subjective expansion of time. Percept Psychophys 66:1171–1189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Verghese P, Stone LS (1996) Perceived visual speed constrained by image segmentation. Nature 381(6578):161–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Warren DH, Welch RB, McCarthy TJ (1981) The role of visual-auditory “compellingness” in the ventriloquism effect: implications for transitivity among the spatial senses. Percept Psychophys 30(6):557–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Watson AB, Pelli DG (1983) QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophys 33(2):113–120PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Burr
    • 1
    • 2
  • Martin S. Banks
    • 3
  • Maria Concetta Morrone
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversità Degli Studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of Western AustraliaNedlandsAustralia
  3. 3.Vision Science Program, Department of Psychology, School of OptometryUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  4. 4.Department of Human Physiological SciencesUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  5. 5.Scientific Institute Stella MarisPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations