Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Full Access ERP evidence for crossmodal interactions during the encoding of audio–visual motion offsets

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

ERP evidence for crossmodal interactions during the encoding of audio–visual motion offsets

  • PDF
  • HTML
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Seeing and Perceiving
For more content, see Multisensory Research and Spatial Vision.

Previous behavioural studies have challenged the notion of unrestricted visual dominance in motion perception by demonstrating that the auditory modality can affect visual motion perception in the peripheral field. Thus far, electrophysiological evidence for the interplay between both modalities across space has not been provided, yet. The present study investigated crossmodal interactions during the encoding of bimodal motion offsets at different locations in space. To this end, moving audio–visual stimuli with either congruent or spatially and temporally disparate motion offsets were presented along different azimuthal trajectories in free-field while event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. The pattern of interactions at motion offset suggests that dominance effects between modalities are reflected in a latency shift of ERP components. The latencies of the visual offset N1 were shifted towards the respective termination of the moving acoustic signal at peripheral motion offset locations. The presence of a concurrent visual motion stream less consistently affected the latencies of auditory offset components at frontal motion offset locations which only partially supports the widely reported visual dominance in the central visual field. However, the results provide electrophysiological evidence that the auditory system can modulate the processing of motion streams in the peripheral visual field which is supposed to be due to superior tracking of an ongoing motion in the periphery by the auditory system compared to the visual system. Our findings are well in line with previous studies that highlighted the crucial role of the auditory modality when the reliability of the visual signal is degraded.

Affiliations: 1: 1University of Leipzig, DE; 2: 2Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, DE

Previous behavioural studies have challenged the notion of unrestricted visual dominance in motion perception by demonstrating that the auditory modality can affect visual motion perception in the peripheral field. Thus far, electrophysiological evidence for the interplay between both modalities across space has not been provided, yet. The present study investigated crossmodal interactions during the encoding of bimodal motion offsets at different locations in space. To this end, moving audio–visual stimuli with either congruent or spatially and temporally disparate motion offsets were presented along different azimuthal trajectories in free-field while event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded. The pattern of interactions at motion offset suggests that dominance effects between modalities are reflected in a latency shift of ERP components. The latencies of the visual offset N1 were shifted towards the respective termination of the moving acoustic signal at peripheral motion offset locations. The presence of a concurrent visual motion stream less consistently affected the latencies of auditory offset components at frontal motion offset locations which only partially supports the widely reported visual dominance in the central visual field. However, the results provide electrophysiological evidence that the auditory system can modulate the processing of motion streams in the peripheral visual field which is supposed to be due to superior tracking of an ongoing motion in the periphery by the auditory system compared to the visual system. Our findings are well in line with previous studies that highlighted the crucial role of the auditory modality when the reliability of the visual signal is degraded.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/18784763/25/0/18784763_025_00_S097_text.html;jsessionid=OJeWoeSKoMid4U_sM42kZ78V.x-brill-live-02?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/187847612x647360&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah
/content/journals/10.1163/187847612x647360
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/187847612x647360
Loading
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/187847612x647360
2012-01-01
2016-12-10

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation