Limits...
Suppressed visual looming stimuli are not integrated with auditory looming signals: Evidence from continuous flash suppression.

Moors P, Huygelier H, Wagemans J, de-Wit L, van Ee R - Iperception (2015)

Bottom Line: In Experiment 1, we show that a looming visual stimulus can result in lower detection thresholds compared to a static concentric grating, but that auditory tone pips congruent with the looming stimulus did not lower suppression thresholds any further.In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, we again observed no advantage for congruent multisensory stimuli.These results add to our understanding of the conditions under which multisensory integration is possible, and suggest that certain forms of multisensory integration are not evident when the visual stimulus is suppressed from awareness using CFS.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium; e-mail: pieter.moors@ppw.kuleuven.be.

ABSTRACT
Previous studies using binocular rivalry have shown that signals in a modality other than the visual can bias dominance durations depending on their congruency with the rivaling stimuli. More recently, studies using continuous flash suppression (CFS) have reported that multisensory integration influences how long visual stimuli remain suppressed. In this study, using CFS, we examined whether the contrast thresholds for detecting visual looming stimuli are influenced by a congruent auditory stimulus. In Experiment 1, we show that a looming visual stimulus can result in lower detection thresholds compared to a static concentric grating, but that auditory tone pips congruent with the looming stimulus did not lower suppression thresholds any further. In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, we again observed no advantage for congruent multisensory stimuli. These results add to our understanding of the conditions under which multisensory integration is possible, and suggest that certain forms of multisensory integration are not evident when the visual stimulus is suppressed from awareness using CFS.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Summary of all four experiments. Bar plots depict the mean normalized contrast threshold for each condition. The dots indicate the normalized contrast thresholds for each participant. Connected dots refer to the same participant.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4441023&req=5

Figure 2: Summary of all four experiments. Bar plots depict the mean normalized contrast threshold for each condition. The dots indicate the normalized contrast thresholds for each participant. Connected dots refer to the same participant.

Mentions: Figure 2A depicts the mean normalized thresholds and the individual data for each subject. The BF analysis revealed that a condition effect was indeed present in the data (BF = 17). To disentangle the relative contribution of each condition to this effect, different contrasts were computed (summarized in Table 1). From Table 1, it is clear that the condition effect is driven by the difference between the AVL and VS condition. Although the AVL and VL conditions do not differ from each other, their combination does differ from the VS condition. This analysis is complemented by the 95% CIs which do not include zero for the AVL vs. VS and AVL/VL vs. VS contrasts.


Suppressed visual looming stimuli are not integrated with auditory looming signals: Evidence from continuous flash suppression.

Moors P, Huygelier H, Wagemans J, de-Wit L, van Ee R - Iperception (2015)

Summary of all four experiments. Bar plots depict the mean normalized contrast threshold for each condition. The dots indicate the normalized contrast thresholds for each participant. Connected dots refer to the same participant.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4441023&req=5

Figure 2: Summary of all four experiments. Bar plots depict the mean normalized contrast threshold for each condition. The dots indicate the normalized contrast thresholds for each participant. Connected dots refer to the same participant.
Mentions: Figure 2A depicts the mean normalized thresholds and the individual data for each subject. The BF analysis revealed that a condition effect was indeed present in the data (BF = 17). To disentangle the relative contribution of each condition to this effect, different contrasts were computed (summarized in Table 1). From Table 1, it is clear that the condition effect is driven by the difference between the AVL and VS condition. Although the AVL and VL conditions do not differ from each other, their combination does differ from the VS condition. This analysis is complemented by the 95% CIs which do not include zero for the AVL vs. VS and AVL/VL vs. VS contrasts.

Bottom Line: In Experiment 1, we show that a looming visual stimulus can result in lower detection thresholds compared to a static concentric grating, but that auditory tone pips congruent with the looming stimulus did not lower suppression thresholds any further.In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, we again observed no advantage for congruent multisensory stimuli.These results add to our understanding of the conditions under which multisensory integration is possible, and suggest that certain forms of multisensory integration are not evident when the visual stimulus is suppressed from awareness using CFS.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium; e-mail: pieter.moors@ppw.kuleuven.be.

ABSTRACT
Previous studies using binocular rivalry have shown that signals in a modality other than the visual can bias dominance durations depending on their congruency with the rivaling stimuli. More recently, studies using continuous flash suppression (CFS) have reported that multisensory integration influences how long visual stimuli remain suppressed. In this study, using CFS, we examined whether the contrast thresholds for detecting visual looming stimuli are influenced by a congruent auditory stimulus. In Experiment 1, we show that a looming visual stimulus can result in lower detection thresholds compared to a static concentric grating, but that auditory tone pips congruent with the looming stimulus did not lower suppression thresholds any further. In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, we again observed no advantage for congruent multisensory stimuli. These results add to our understanding of the conditions under which multisensory integration is possible, and suggest that certain forms of multisensory integration are not evident when the visual stimulus is suppressed from awareness using CFS.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus