May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
The Difference Between Within–Modal and Cross–Modal Integration: A Bayesian Explanation
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • G. Gingras
    Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston–Salem, NC
  • B.A. Rowland
    Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston–Salem, NC
  • B.E. Stein
    Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston–Salem, NC
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  G. Gingras, None; B.A. Rowland, None; B.E. Stein, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH grants NS36916 and NS22543
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 3686. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      G. Gingras, B.A. Rowland, B.E. Stein; The Difference Between Within–Modal and Cross–Modal Integration: A Bayesian Explanation . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):3686.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Introduction: : In a spatial localization task, an animal must infer the location of a stimulus from a probabilistic sensory input.

Purpose: : Bayes’ theory provides a model that describes how these inferences can be made in a statistically optimal manner for different stimulus configurations. The Bayesian model predicts that the localization of a visual stimulus will be greatly enhanced by a co–localized auditory stimulus because the visual and auditory systems are statistically independent estimators of the environment. However, the Bayesian model predicts a substantially lower enhancement when a visual stimulus is co–localized with another visual stimulus. The benefit derived from their integration is reduced because they do not constitute statistically independent samples of the environment (they are conveyed by the same sensory system). Here we test this model.

Methods: : Adult cats were trained to localize brief (40 ms) visual stimuli presented at 7 different locations using a perimetry apparatus. Localization was then tested with a single visual stimulus, two visual stimuli, or a visual and an auditory stimulus.

Results: : There is good agreement between the predictions of the model and the performance of the animals in this task, which suggests that animals integrate within–modal and cross–modal stimuli differently according to their statistical relationships with one another.

Conclusions: : These data indicate that there are substantial computational differences between unisensory and multisensory integration at the behavioral level.

Keywords: superior colliculus/optic tectum • perception • vision and action 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×