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

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.

[1]  G. J. Thomas Experimental study of the influence of vision on sound localization. , 1941 .

[2]  H. A. Witkin,et al.  Sound localization with conflicting visual and auditory cues. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  C. V. Jackson,et al.  Visual Factors in Auditory Localization , 1953 .

[4]  I. Howard,et al.  Human Spatial Orientation , 1966 .

[5]  L. K. Canon Intermodality inconsistency of input and directed attention as determinants of the nature of adaptation. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  Willard R. Thurlow,et al.  The effects of eye position and expectation on sound localization , 1971 .

[7]  W R Thurlow,et al.  Effects of degree of visual association and angle of displacement on the "ventriloquism" effect. , 1973, Perceptual and motor skills.

[8]  W R Thurlow,et al.  Certain Determinants of the “Ventriloquism Effect” , 1973, Perceptual and motor skills.

[9]  Monique Radeau Adaptation au déplacement prismatique sur la base d'une discordance entre la vision et l'audition , 1974 .

[10]  J A Kelso,et al.  Allocation of attention and the locus of adaptation to displaced vision. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Robert B. Welch,et al.  The “ventriloquist effect”: Visual dominance or response bias? , 1975 .

[12]  R B Welch,et al.  Effect of Degree of Separation of Visual-Auditory Stimulus and Eye Position upon Spatial Interaction of Vision and Audition , 1976, Perceptual and motor skills.

[13]  Paul Bertelson,et al.  The effect of a textured visual field on modality dominance in a ventriloquism situation , 1976 .

[14]  Paul Bertelson,et al.  Ventriloquism, sensory interaction, and response bias: Remarks on the paper by Choe, Welch, Gilford, and Juola , 1976 .

[15]  P. Bertelson,et al.  Adaptation to auditory-visual discordance and ventriloquism in semirealistic situations , 1977 .

[16]  D H Warren,et al.  Spatial Localization under Conflict Conditions: Is There a Single Explanation? , 1979, Perception.