Observers can reliably identify illusory flashes in the illusory flash paradigm

In the illusory flash paradigm, a single flash may be experienced as two flashes when accompanied by two beeps or taps, and two flashes may be experienced as a single flash when accompanied by one beep or tap. The classic paradigm restricts responses to ‘1’ and ‘2’ (2-AFC), ignoring possible qualitative differences between real and illusory flashes and implicitly assuming that illusory flashes are indistinguishable from real flashes. We added a third response category ‘different from that of either 1 or 2 flashes’ (3-AFC). Eight naïve and 6 experienced observers responded to 160 real and 160 illusory flash trials. Experienced observers were exposed to 1,200 trials before the experiment but without receiving feedback on their performance. The third response category was used for only 4 % of the real flash trials and for 44 % of the illusory flash trials. Experienced observers did so more often (78 %) than naïve observers (18 %). This shows that observers can reliably identify illusory flashes and indicates that mere exposure to illusory flash trials (without feedback) is enough to detect and classify potential qualitative differences between real and illusory flashes.

[1]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Early Cross-Modal Interactions in Auditory and Visual Cortex Underlie a Sound-Induced Visual Illusion , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  P. Mamassian,et al.  What does the illusory-flash look like? , 2010, Vision Research.

[3]  Shaofeng Liu,et al.  Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) , 2006 .

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

[5]  Jean Vroomen,et al.  The role of spatial disparity and hemifields in audio-visual temporal order judgments , 2005, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  Tom G. Philippi,et al.  Multisensory effects differ for counting small and large pulse numbers. , 2011, Seeing and perceiving.

[7]  Jan B. F. van Erp,et al.  Multisensory temporal numerosity judgment , 2008, Brain Research.

[8]  Jan B F van Erp,et al.  Vibro-Tactile and Visual Asynchronies: Sensitivity and Consistency , 2004, Perception.

[9]  Mikko Sams,et al.  Factors influencing audiovisual fission and fusion illusions. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[11]  Ladan Shams,et al.  Early modulation of visual cortex by sound: an MEG study , 2005, Neuroscience Letters.

[12]  Marc O. Ernst,et al.  Tri-modal integration of visual, tactile and auditory signals for the perception of sequences of events , 2008, Brain Research Bulletin.

[13]  Jan B. F. van Erp,et al.  Time-Shrinking and the Design of Tactons , 2008, EuroHaptics.

[14]  Peter J. Werkhoven,et al.  Counting visual and tactile events: The effect of attention on multisensory integration , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[15]  P. Bertelson,et al.  Recalibration of temporal order perception by exposure to audio-visual asynchrony. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

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

[18]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Sound-Induced Flash Illusion is Resistant to Feedback Training , 2004, Brain Topography.

[19]  B. Stein,et al.  The Merging of the Senses , 1993 .

[20]  Jan B. F. van Erp,et al.  Is the Touch-Induced Illusory Flash Distinguishable from a Real Flash? , 2010, EuroHaptics.

[21]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Sound alters visual evoked potentials in humans , 2001, Neuroreport.