Efficient Visual Recalibration from Either Visual or Haptic Feedback: The Importance of Being Wrong

The human visual system adapts to the changing statistics of its environment. For example, the light-from-above prior, an assumption that aids the interpretation of ambiguous shading information, can be modified by haptic (touch) feedback. Here we investigate the mechanisms that drive this adaptive learning. In particular, we ask whether visual information can be as effective as haptics in driving visual recalibration and whether increased information (feedback from multiple modalities) induces faster learning. During several hours' training, feedback encouraged observers to modify their existing light-from-above assumption. Feedback was one of the following: (1) haptic only, (2) haptic and stereoscopic (providing binocular shape information), or (3) stereoscopic only. Haptic-only feedback resulted in substantial learning; the perceived shape of shaded objects was modified in accordance with observers' new light priors. However, the addition of continuous visual feedback (condition 2) substantially reduced learning. When visual-only feedback was provided intermittently (condition 3), mimicking the time course of the haptic feedback of conditions 1 and 2, substantial learning returned. The intermittent nature of conflict information, or feedback, appears critical for learning. It causes an initial, erroneous percept to be corrected. Contrary to previous proposals, we found no particular advantage for cross-modal feedback. Instead, we suggest that an “oops” factor drives efficient learning; recalibration is prioritized when a mismatch exists between sequential representations of an object property. This “oops” factor appears important both across and within sensory modalities, suggesting a general principle for perceptual learning and recalibration.

[1]  Wendy D. Zosh,et al.  Optic Flow Drives Human Visuo-Locomotor Adaptation , 2007, Current Biology.

[2]  M. Landy,et al.  The effect of viewpoint on perceived visual roughness. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[3]  David C. Burr,et al.  Young Children Do Not Integrate Visual and Haptic Form Information , 2008, Current Biology.

[4]  H. Wallach,et al.  Adaptation in distance perception based on oculomotor cues , 1972 .

[5]  Wendy J Adams,et al.  Modification of the convexity prior but not the light-from-above prior in visual search with shaded objects. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[6]  W. T. Thach,et al.  Throwing while looking through prisms. II. Specificity and storage of multiple gaze-throw calibrations. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  David C. Burr,et al.  Young children do not integrate visual and haptic information , 2008 .

[8]  W Epstein,et al.  Adaptation to uniocular image magnification: modification of the disparity-depth relationship. , 1970, The American journal of psychology.

[9]  V. S. Ramachandran,et al.  Perception of shape from shading , 1988, Nature.

[10]  M. Ernst,et al.  Experience can change the 'light-from-above' prior , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  R. Rescorla,et al.  A theory of Pavlovian conditioning : Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement , 1972 .

[12]  W Epstein Adaptation to uniocular image magnification after varying preadaptation activities. , 1971, The American journal of psychology.

[13]  K J Ciuffreda,et al.  Adaptation to Optically-Increased Interocular Separation under Naturalistic Viewing Conditions , 1990, Perception.

[14]  L. Kamin Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning , 1967 .

[15]  D. Shanks,et al.  Resistance to interference in human associative learning: evidence of configural processing. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[16]  Wendy J. Adams,et al.  Adaptation to three-dimensional distortions in human vision , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  S M Ebenholtz,et al.  Does perceptual adaptation to telestereoscopically enhanced depth depend on the recalibration of binocular disparity? , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  M. Banks,et al.  Visual–Haptic Adaptation Is Determined by Relative Reliability , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  Roger W. Li,et al.  Crowding between first- and second-order letter stimuli in normal foveal and peripheral vision. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[20]  W. Epstein,et al.  The effect of level of depth processing and degree of informational discrepancy on adaptation to uniocular image magnification. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  W. Epstein Recalibration by Pairing: A Process of Perceptual Learning , 1975, Perception.

[22]  G. Berkeley Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision , 2004 .

[23]  Robert A. Jacobs,et al.  Visual Learning in Multisensory Environments , 2010, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[24]  H. Wallach,et al.  Modification of stereoscopic depth-perception. , 1963, The American journal of psychology.

[25]  Sheldon M. Ebenholtz,et al.  Perceptual aftereffects of sustained convergence , 1975 .

[26]  W. Kohler,et al.  Figural after-effects in the third dimensions of visual space. , 1947, The American journal of psychology.

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

[28]  D. Knill Learning Bayesian priors for depth perception. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[29]  Hans Wallach,et al.  The nature of adaptation in distance perception based on oculomotor cues , 1972 .