Bimodal sensory discrimination is finer than dual single modality discrimination.

Here we show that discriminating between different signal modulation rates can be easier when stimuli are presented in two modalities (vision and audition) rather than just one. This was true even when the single modality signal was repeated. This facilitation did not require simultaneous presentations in both modalities and therefore cannot rely on sensory fusion. Signal detection threshold for bimodal signals and double single modality signals were found to be equivalent indicating that the double single modality signals were not intrinsically noisier. The lack of facilitation in double single modality conditions was not due to inaccessibility of the first sample because there is no performance difference when noise was added to either the first or second samples. We propose that the bimodal signal discrimination advantage arises from fluctuations in the magnitude of sensory noise over time and because observers select the most reliable modality on a trial by trial basis. Noise levels within repeated single modality trials are more likely to be similar than those within signals from different modalities. As a consequence, signal selection would be less effective in the former circumstances. Overall, our findings illustrate the advantage of using separate sensory channels to achieve reliable information processing.

[1]  W. F. Bischof,et al.  Bootstrap variance estimators for the parameters of small-sample sensory-performance functions , 1987, Biological Cybernetics.

[2]  Philip T Quinlan,et al.  Cross-modal integration of simple auditory and visual events , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  M. Pirenne,et al.  Binocular and Uniocular Threshold of Vision , 1943, Nature.

[4]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection theory: A user's guide, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[5]  Marc O. Ernst,et al.  A Bayesian view on multimodal cue integration , 2006 .

[6]  J. Finnerty Evolutionary developmental biology: Head start , 2000, Nature.

[7]  Jean-Pierre Bresciani,et al.  Vision and touch are automatically integrated for the perception of sequences of events. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[8]  P. Bertelson,et al.  The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of automatic visual attention , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  A. Yuille,et al.  Bayesian decision theory and psychophysics , 1996 .

[10]  C. Spence,et al.  On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  W. Richards,et al.  Perception as Bayesian Inference , 2008 .

[12]  M. Ernst,et al.  Feeling what you hear: auditory signals can modulate tactile tap perception , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  Mikko Sams,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Integration of rapid flashes and beeps , 2005, Neuroscience Letters.

[14]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[15]  James M. Hillis,et al.  Slant from texture and disparity cues: optimal cue combination. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[16]  M. Hasselmo,et al.  Differences in time course of ACh and GABA modulation of excitatory synaptic potentials in slices of rat hippocampus. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  James M. Hillis,et al.  Combining Sensory Information: Mandatory Fusion Within, but Not Between, Senses , 2002, Science.

[18]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Touch-induced visual illusion , 2005, Neuroreport.

[19]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Visual illusion induced by sound. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[20]  D. H. Kelly Motion and vision. II. Stabilized spatio-temporal threshold surface. , 1979, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[21]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[22]  James V. Stone,et al.  When is now? Perception of simultaneity , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[23]  P. Bertelson,et al.  The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of deliberate visual attention , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  D. Burr,et al.  The Ventriloquist Effect Results from Near-Optimal Bimodal Integration , 2004, Current Biology.

[25]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Illusions: What you see is what you hear , 2000, Nature.

[26]  M. Landy,et al.  Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion , 1995, Vision Research.

[27]  Robert A Jacobs,et al.  Bayesian integration of visual and auditory signals for spatial localization. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[28]  P. Quinlan,et al.  Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  Michel Treisman,et al.  Combining Information: Probability Summation and Probability Averaging in Detection and Discrimination , 1998 .

[30]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  Human Body Perception From The Inside Out , 2005 .

[31]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.