Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 578–584 | Cite as

Cross-modal bias and perceptual fusion with auditory-visual spatial discordance

  • Paul Bertelson
  • Monique Radeau


Investigations of situations involving spatial discordance between auditory and visual data which can otherwise be attributed to a common origin have revealed two main phenomena:cross-modal bias andperceptual fusion (or ventriloquism). The focus of the present study is the relationship between these two. The question asked was whether bias occurred only with fusion, as is predicted by some accounts of reactions to discordance, among them those based on cuesubstitution. The approach consisted of having subjects, on each trial, both point to signals in one modality in the presence of conflicting signals in the other modality and produce same-different origin judgments. To avoid the confounding of immediate effects with cumulative adaptation, which was allowed in most previous studies, the direction and amplitude of discordance was varied randomly from trial to trial. Experiment 1, which was a pilot study, showed that both visual bias of auditory localization and auditory bias of visual localization can be observed under such conditions. Experiment 2, which addressed the main question, used a method which controls for the selection involved in separating fusion from no-fusion trials and showed that the attraction of auditory localization by conflicting visual inputs occurs even when fusion is not reported. This result is inconsistent with purely postperceptual views of cross-modal interactions. The question could not be answered for auditory bias of visual localization, which, although significant, was very small in Experiment 1 and fell below significance under the conditions of Experiment 2.

Reference Note

  1. 1.
    Radeau, M., & Bertelson, P.Auditory-visual intermodal bias and temporal relations between signals. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar


  1. Bermant, R. I., &Welch, R. B. The effect of degree of visual-auditory stimulus separation and eye position upon the spatial interaction of vision and audition.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976,43, 487–493.Google Scholar
  2. Bertelson, P., &Radeau, M. Ventriloquism, sensory interaction, and response bias: Remarks on the paper by Choe, Welch, Gilford, and Juola.Perception & Psychophysics, 1976,19, 531–535.Google Scholar
  3. Canon, L. K. Intermodality inconsistency of input and directed attention as determinants of the nature of adaptation.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,84, 141–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Choe, C. S., Welch, R. B., Gilford, R. M., &Juola, J. F. The “ventriloquist effect”: Visual dominance or response bias?Perception & Psychophysics, 1975,18, 55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faverge, J. M.Méthodes statistiques en psychologie appliquée (Vol. 2). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1972.Google Scholar
  6. Howard, I. P., &Templeton, W. B.Human spatial orientation. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  7. Jack, C. E., &Thurlow, W. R. Effects of degree of visual association and angle of displacement on the “ventriloquism” effect.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973,37, 967–979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jackson, C. V. Visual factors in auditory localization.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953,5, 52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaufman, L.Sight and mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. Kelso, J. A. S., Cook, E., Olson, M. E., &Epstein, W. Allocation of attention and the locus of adaptation to displaced vision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975,1, 237–245.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Klemm, O. Lokalisation von Sinneseindrücken bei disparaten Nebenreizen.Psychologische Studien (Wundt), 1909,5, 73–161.Google Scholar
  12. Pick, H. L., Jr.,Warren, D. H., &Hay, J. C. Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction.Perception & Psychophysics, 1969,6, 203–205.Google Scholar
  13. Radeau, M. Adaptation au déplacement prismatique sur la base d’une discordance entre la vision et l’audition.L’Année Psychologique, 1974,74, 23–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Radeau, M., &Bertelson, P. The effect of a textured visual field on modality dominance in a ventriloquism situation.Perception & Psychophysics, 1976,20, 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Radeau, M., &Bertelson, P. Adaptation to auditory-visual discordance and ventriloquism in semirealistic situations.Perception & Psychophysics, 1977,22, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stratton, G. M. Vision without inversion of the retinal image.Psychological Review, 1897,4, 341–360, 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomas, G. J. Experimental study of the influence of vision on sound localization.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1941,28, 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thurlow, W. R., &Jack, C. E. Certain determinants of the “ventriloquism effect.”Perception and Motor Skills, 1973,36, 1171–1184.Google Scholar
  19. Warren, D. H. Spatial localization under conflict conditions: Is there a single explanation?Perception, 1979,8, 323–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Weerts, T. C., &Thurlow, W. R. The effect of eye position and expectation on sound localization.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,9, 35–39.Google Scholar
  21. Witkin, H. A., Wapner, S., &Leventhal, T. Sound localization with conflicting visual and auditory cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952,43, 58–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Bertelson
    • 1
  • Monique Radeau
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Psychologie expérimentaleUniversité libre de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium

Personalised recommendations