Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 228, Issue 1, pp 43–50 | Cite as

Visual presentation of hand image modulates visuo–tactile temporal order judgment

  • Masakazu IdeEmail author
  • Souta Hidaka
Research Article

Abstract

Perceptual systems can distinguish among a variety of inputs in the temporal domain, including even different sensory inputs. This process has been investigated mainly by using a temporal task (temporal order judgment: TOJ). For example, studies have reported estimated critical limits (just noticeable difference: JND) of the TOJ between a visual stimulus and a tactile stimulus (visuo–tactile TOJ, e.g., flashes and vibrations) fell within a certain temporal range. Recent studies have also suggested that the visual presentation of a hand image could modulate visuo–tactile integrations in the temporal domain, but these studies did not thoroughly examine such effects by using temporal tasks. Here, we investigated the effect of visual presentation of a hand image on visuo–tactile TOJ. In our experiments, a visual stimulus was presented on the index finger of a hand image and a tactile stimulus was presented on the index finger of a participant’s hand. We found that the JND of visuo–tactile TOJ became larger when a forward hand image was presented than when inverted hand or arrow images were presented. However, this effect was not observed for the TOJ between an auditory stimulus and a visual stimulus. Thus, the visual presentation of a hand image whose angle corresponds to that of one’s own hand could selectively degrade visuo–tactile TOJ. This finding indicates that visual hand images implicitly enhance the internal proximity between the visual and tactile stimuli and make them difficult to distinguish from each other in the temporal domain.

Keywords

Visuo–tactile interaction Audio–visual interaction Temporal order judgment Visual hand image Body image 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Miho Kondo for her support in conducting the experiments and Shoko Yabuki’s help in preparing the figures included in this paper. We are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable and insightful comments. This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid from Rikkyo University Special Fund for Research (No. 18120030) and a Grant-in-Aid for Specially Promoted Research from JSPS (No. 19001004).

Supplementary material

221_2013_3535_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (94 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 94 kb)

References

  1. Armel KC, Ramachandran VS (2003) Projecting sensations to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response. Proc R Soc Land Biol Sci 270:1499–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertelson P, Aschersleben G (2003) Temporal ventriloquism: crossmodal interaction on the time dimension. 1. Evidence from auditory-visual temporal order judgment. Int J Psychophysiol 50:147–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bien N, ten Oever S, Goebel R, Sack AT (2012) The sound of size: crossmodal binding in pitch-size synesthesia: a combined TMS, EEG and psychophysics study. Neuroimage 59:663–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nat 391:756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainard DH (1997) The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calvert GA, Spence C, Stein BE (eds) (2004) The hand book of multisensory processes. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardini F, Longo MR, Haggard P (2011) Vision of the body modulates somatosensory intracortical inhibition. Cereb Cor 21:2014–2022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. Driver J, Spence C (2000) Multisensory perception: beyond modularity and convergence. Curr Biol 10:731–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duhamel J, Colby CI, Goldberg ME (1998) Ventral intraparietal area of the macaque: congruent visual and somatic response properties. J Neurophysiol 79:126–136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Pashingham RE (2004) That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305:875–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis PD (2010) The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fujisaki W, Nishida S (2009) Audio-tactile superiority over visuo–tactile and audio–visual combinations in the temporal resolution of synchrony perception. Exp Brain Res 198:245–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graziano MSA (1999) Where is my arm? The relative role of vision and proprioception in the neuronal representation of limb position. PNAS 96:10418–10421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graziano MSA, Cooke DF, Taylor CSR (2000) Coding the location of the arm by sight. Science 290:782–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrar V, Harris LR (2008) The effect of exposure to asynchronous audio, visual, and tactile stimulus combinations on the perception of simultaneity. Exp Brain Res 186:517–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris JA, Arabzadeh E, Moore CA, Clifford CWG (2007) Noninformative vision causes adaptive changes in tactile sensitivity. J Neurosci 27:7136–7140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirsh IJ, Sherrick CE Jr (1961) Perceived order in different sense modalities. J Exp Psychol 62:423–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ide M (2013) The effect of “anatomical plausibility” of hand angle on the rubber hand illusion. Percept 42:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Igarashi Y, Kitagawa N, Ichihara S (2004) Vision of pictorial hand modulates visual-tactile interactions. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 4:182–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iriki A, Tanaka M, Iwamura Y (1996) Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurons. NeuroReport 7:2325–2330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iriki A, Tanaka M, Obayashi S, Iwamura Y (2001) Self-images in the video monitor coded by monkey intraparietal neurons. Neurosci Res 40:163–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaśkowski P, Jaroszyk F, Hojan-Jezierska D (1990) Temporal-order judgments and reaction time for stimuli of different modalities. Psychol Res 52:35–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keetels M, Vroomen J (2005) The role of spatial disparity and hemifields in audio-visual temporal order judgments. Exp Brain Res 167:635–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kennett S, Taylor-Clarke M, Haggard P (2001) Noninformative vision improves the spatial resolution of touch in humans. Curr Biol 11:1188–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makin TR, Holmes NP, Zohary E (2007) Is that near my hand? Multisensory representation of peripersonal space in human intraparietal sulcus. J Neurosci 27:731–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mirams L, Poliakoff E, Brown J, Lloyd DM (2010) Vision of body increase interference on the somatic signal detection task. Exp Brain Res 202:787–794PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicol JR, Shore DL (2007) Perceptual grouping impairs temporal resolution. Exp Brain Res 183:141–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parise CV, Spence C (2009) “When birds of a feather flock together”: synesthetic correspondences modulate audiovisual integration in non-synesthetes. PLoS ONE 4:e5664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pelli DG (1997) The Video Toolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10:437–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rutschmann J, Link R (1964) Perception of temporal order of stimuli differing in sense mode and simple reaction time. Percept Mot Skills 18:345–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shimada S, Fukuda K, Hiraki K (2009) Rubber hand illusion under delayed visual feedback. PLoS ONE 4:e6185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shore DL, Spence C (2005) Prior entry. In: Itti L, Rees G, Tsotsos JK (eds) Neurobiology of attention. Elsevierm, Academic Press, San Diego, pp 89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith WF (1933) The relative quickness of visual and auditory perception. J Exp Psy 16:239–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spence C, Parise C (2010) Prior entry: a review. Conscious Cogn 19:364–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spence C, Shore DI, Klein RM (2001) Multisensory prior entry. J Exp Psychol Gen 130:799–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spence C, Baddeley R, Zampini M, James R, Shore DI (2003) Multisensory temporal order judgments: when two locations are better than one. Percept Psychophys 65:318–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stein BE, Meredith MA (1993) The merging of the senses. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor-Clarke M, Kennett S, Haggard P (2004) Persistence of visual-tactile enhancement in humans. Neurosci Lett 354:22–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tipper SP, Lloyd D, Shorland B, Dancer C, Howard LA, McGlone F (1998) Vision influences tactile perception without proprioceptive orienting. Neuro Rep 9:1741–1744Google Scholar
  41. Tsakiris M, Haggard P (2005) The rubber hand illusion revised: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31:80–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vatakis A, Bayliss L, Zampini M, Spence C (2007) The influence of synchronous audiovisual distractors on audiovisual temporal order judgments. Percept Psychophys 69:298–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zampini M, Brown T, Shore DI, Maravita A, Roder B, Spence C (2005) Audiotactile temporal order judgments. Acta Psychol 118:277–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRikkyo UniversityNiiza-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations