Display options
Cite
Hong F, Badde S, Landy MS. Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(11):e1008877doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008877.
Hong, F., Badde, S., & Landy, M. S. (2021). Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception. PLoS computational biology, 17(11), e1008877. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008877
Hong, Fangfang, et al. "Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception." PLoS computational biology vol. 17,11 (2021): e1008877. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008877
Hong F, Badde S, Landy MS. Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021 Nov 15;17(11):e1008877. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008877. eCollection 2021 Nov. PMID: 34780469; PMCID: PMC8629398.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

PLoS Comput Biol. 2021 Nov 15;17(11):e1008877. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008877. eCollection 2021 Nov.

Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception.

PLoS computational biology

Fangfang Hong, Stephanie Badde, Michael S Landy

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, New York University, New York City, New York, United States of America.
  2. Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, United States of America.
  3. Center for Neural Science, New York University, New York City, New York, United States of America.

PMID: 34780469 PMCID: PMC8629398 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008877

Abstract

To obtain a coherent perception of the world, our senses need to be in alignment. When we encounter misaligned cues from two sensory modalities, the brain must infer which cue is faulty and recalibrate the corresponding sense. We examined whether and how the brain uses cue reliability to identify the miscalibrated sense by measuring the audiovisual ventriloquism aftereffect for stimuli of varying visual reliability. To adjust for modality-specific biases, visual stimulus locations were chosen based on perceived alignment with auditory stimulus locations for each participant. During an audiovisual recalibration phase, participants were presented with bimodal stimuli with a fixed perceptual spatial discrepancy; they localized one modality, cued after stimulus presentation. Unimodal auditory and visual localization was measured before and after the audiovisual recalibration phase. We compared participants' behavior to the predictions of three models of recalibration: (a) Reliability-based: each modality is recalibrated based on its relative reliability-less reliable cues are recalibrated more; (b) Fixed-ratio: the degree of recalibration for each modality is fixed; (c) Causal-inference: recalibration is directly determined by the discrepancy between a cue and its estimate, which in turn depends on the reliability of both cues, and inference about how likely the two cues derive from a common source. Vision was hardly recalibrated by audition. Auditory recalibration by vision changed idiosyncratically as visual reliability decreased: the extent of auditory recalibration either decreased monotonically, peaked at medium visual reliability, or increased monotonically. The latter two patterns cannot be explained by either the reliability-based or fixed-ratio models. Only the causal-inference model of recalibration captures the idiosyncratic influences of cue reliability on recalibration. We conclude that cue reliability, causal inference, and modality-specific biases guide cross-modal recalibration indirectly by determining the perception of audiovisual stimuli.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Q J Exp Psychol. 1974 Feb;26(1):63-71 - PubMed
  2. Eur J Neurosci. 2010 May;31(10):1721-9 - PubMed
  3. J Neurosci. 2011 Mar 23;31(12):4607-12 - PubMed
  4. Exp Brain Res. 2004 Sep;158(2):252-8 - PubMed
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Apr 30;116(18):9060-9065 - PubMed
  6. Nat Neurosci. 2004 Jul;7(7):773-8 - PubMed
  7. Neuron. 2019 Jun 5;102(5):1076-1087.e8 - PubMed
  8. PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Jul 27;14(7):e1006110 - PubMed
  9. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42 - PubMed
  10. Neural Comput. 2007 Dec;19(12):3335-55 - PubMed
  11. Vision Res. 2003 Nov;43(25):2603-13 - PubMed
  12. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Dec 08;11(12):e1004649 - PubMed
  13. Psychol Bull. 1980 Nov;88(3):638-67 - PubMed
  14. PLoS Biol. 2019 Apr 2;17(4):e3000210 - PubMed
  15. Exp Brain Res. 2007 Jun;179(4):595-606 - PubMed
  16. Cognition. 2020 Apr;197:104170 - PubMed
  17. J Vis. 2015;15(5):22 - PubMed
  18. Elife. 2020 Aug 25;9: - PubMed
  19. J Neurosci. 2011 Sep 28;31(39):13949-62 - PubMed
  20. J Neurosci. 2009 Nov 4;29(44):13809-14 - PubMed
  21. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003 Jul;113(3):315-27 - PubMed
  22. Neuroreport. 2001 Jan 22;12(1):7-10 - PubMed
  23. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971 Feb;49(2):Suppl 2:467+ - PubMed
  24. Perception. 1985;14(6):721-7 - PubMed
  25. PLoS One. 2007 Sep 26;2(9):e943 - PubMed
  26. Percept Mot Skills. 1973 Jun;36(3):1171-84 - PubMed
  27. J Neurosci. 2009 Dec 9;29(49):15601-12 - PubMed
  28. J Exp Psychol. 1970 Apr;84(1):141-7 - PubMed
  29. Curr Biol. 2003 Mar 18;13(6):483-8 - PubMed
  30. Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261-272 - PubMed
  31. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2003 Jul;20(7):1391-7 - PubMed
  32. J Vis. 2009 Nov 13;9(12):7.1-16 - PubMed
  33. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):869-75 - PubMed
  34. Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 19;6:24673 - PubMed
  35. J Neurosci. 2007 Aug 8;27(32):8525-32 - PubMed
  36. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003 May;16(3):468-78 - PubMed
  37. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Dec;22(1):32-5 - PubMed
  38. PLoS One. 2017 Jan 6;12(1):e0169676 - PubMed
  39. Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 11;9(1):8513 - PubMed
  40. Exp Brain Res. 2017 Feb;235(2):585-595 - PubMed
  41. PLoS One. 2015 Feb 06;10(2):e0117178 - PubMed
  42. PLoS One. 2017 Sep 8;12(9):e0183776 - PubMed
  43. Curr Biol. 2004 Feb 3;14(3):257-62 - PubMed
  44. Nat Neurosci. 2000 Jan;3(1):69-73 - PubMed
  45. Nat Neurosci. 2011 Nov 20;15(1):146-54 - PubMed
  46. Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1293-313 - PubMed
  47. Percept Mot Skills. 1973 Dec;37(3):967-79 - PubMed
  48. J Vis. 2005 Dec 28;5(11):1013-23 - PubMed
  49. J Vis. 2013 May 08;13(6): - PubMed
  50. Eur J Neurosci. 2009 Sep;30(6):1141-50 - PubMed
  51. J Vis. 2010 Sep 01;10(11):23 - PubMed
  52. J Neurophysiol. 2012 Oct;108(8):2282-91 - PubMed
  53. Exp Brain Res. 2002 Dec;147(3):332-43 - PubMed
  54. Percept Psychophys. 1981 Dec;30(6):557-64 - PubMed
  55. J Neurosci. 2010 Jun 2;30(22):7714-21 - PubMed
  56. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2009 Aug;19(4):452-8 - PubMed
  57. Psychol Sci. 2011 Sep;22(9):1120-6 - PubMed
  58. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Aug 05;6(8): - PubMed
  59. Nat Commun. 2016 Jun 06;7:11543 - PubMed
  60. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 - PubMed
  61. Nat Neurosci. 2006 Nov;9(11):1432-8 - PubMed
  62. J Vis. 2006 Apr 20;6(5):554-64 - PubMed
  63. Learn Mem. 2002 Sep-Oct;9(5):268-78 - PubMed
  64. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2005 Jan-Feb;118(1-2):93-100 - PubMed
  65. Curr Biol. 2020 May 4;30(9):1726-1732.e7 - PubMed
  66. Curr Biol. 2002 May 14;12(10):834-7 - PubMed
  67. Front Integr Neurosci. 2015 May 07;9:34 - PubMed
  68. J Neurosci. 2012 Mar 14;32(11):3726-35 - PubMed
  69. Nature. 2002 Jan 24;415(6870):429-33 - PubMed
  70. Biol Cybern. 2016 Dec;110(6):455-471 - PubMed
  71. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 04;9(3):e89339 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support