Perceptual averaging by eye and ear: Computing summary statistics from multimodal stimuli

Beyond perceiving the features of individual objects, we also have the intriguing ability to efficiently perceive average values of collections of objects across various dimensions. Over what features can perceptual averaging occur? Work to date has been limited to visual properties, but perceptual experience is intrinsically multimodal. In an initial exploration of how this process operates in multimodal environments, we explored statistical summarizing in audition (averaging pitch from a sequence of tones) and vision (averaging size from a sequence of discs), and their interaction. We observed two primary results. First, not only was auditory averaging robust, but if anything, it was more accurate than visual averaging in the present study. Second, when uncorrelated visual and auditory information were simultaneously present, observers showed little cost for averaging in either modality when they did not know until the end of each trial which average they had to report. These results illustrate that perceptual averaging can span different sensory modalities, and they also illustrate how vision and audition can both cooperate and compete for resources.

[1]  M. Teghtsoonian THE JUDGMENT OF SIZE. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  F. Colavita,et al.  A further investigation of visual dominance , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  D. H. Warren,et al.  Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. , 1980, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Sound alters visual motion perception , 1997, Nature.

[5]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[6]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[7]  C. Spence,et al.  Cross-modal links in spatial attention. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

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

[9]  D. Ariely Seeing Sets: Representation by Statistical Properties , 2001, Psychological science.

[10]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions , 2001, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[11]  M. Kubovy,et al.  Auditory and visual objects , 2001, Cognition.

[12]  A. Treisman,et al.  Representation of statistical properties , 2003, Vision Research.

[13]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Merging the senses into a robust percept , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  A. Treisman,et al.  Attentional spread in the statistical processing of visual displays , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  A. Treisman,et al.  Statistical processing: computing the average size in perceptual groups , 2005, Vision Research.

[16]  Albert Costa,et al.  Manipulating inattentional blindness within and across sensory modalities , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  Aaron R. Seitz,et al.  Sound Facilitates Visual Learning , 2006, Current Biology.

[18]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Building the gist of a scene: the role of global image features in recognition. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[19]  L. Holt The mean matters: effects of statistically defined nonspeech spectral distributions on speech categorization. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  C. Spence Audiovisual multisensory integration , 2007 .

[21]  Jason M Haberman,et al.  Correspondences Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces , 2007 .

[22]  A. Oliva,et al.  The Representation of Simple Ensemble Visual Features Outside the Focus of Attention , 2008, Psychological science.

[23]  D. Simons,et al.  Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  A. Treisman,et al.  Dividing attention across feature dimensions in statistical processing of perceptual groups , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  Sung Jun Joo,et al.  Statistical processing: Not so implausible after all , 2008, Perception & Psychophysics.

[26]  P. Bressan,et al.  Auditory Attention Causes Visual Inattentional Blindness , 2008, Perception.

[27]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Automatic statistical processing of visual properties in simultanagnosia , 2008, Neuropsychologia.

[28]  J. D. de Fockert,et al.  Rapid extraction of mean identity from sets of faces. , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  L. Shams,et al.  Crossmodal influences on visual perception. , 2010, Physics of life reviews.

[30]  Jason M Haberman,et al.  The visual system discounts emotional deviants when extracting average expression , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[31]  Alice R. Albrecht,et al.  Perceptually Averaging in a Continuous Visual World , 2010, Psychological science.

[32]  Julie D. Golomb,et al.  A taxonomy of external and internal attention. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[33]  G. Alvarez Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[34]  Chris Oriet,et al.  Rapid averaging? Not so fast! , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.