A multisensory visuotactile illusion induced by monocular occlusion with a black contact lens does not depend on touch signals on the face: Evidence from behavioural and modelling studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural integration of different sensory modalities provides a meaningful, unified representation of the world. However, conflict between modalities can cause illusory perceptions when inputs are sufficiently incongruent. As shown previously (Wolfe & Carpinella, 2008, ECVP), monocular blindness induced by an occluder contact lens in the absence of congruent tactile input causes ipsilateral facial paresthesias and, in some cases, neglect-like symptoms. The strength and extent of the effect is stronger when the dominant (rather than non-dominant) eye is occluded. More recent work (Jobst et al., 2010, SfN) shows that, furthermore, everyday experience modulates the strength of the effect as non-contact wearers have larger facial areas of paresthesias than contact wearers. The paresthesias are experienced without any corresponding elevation of tactile detection threshold as tested with an aesthesiometer (Di Noto & DeSouza, 2010, SfN). Consistent with findings by Wolfe and colleagues (2007, P&P), in all studies, paresthesias were found mainly ipsilateral to the occlusion and were accompanied by an illusory ipsilateral eyelid droop. We developed a computational model of this illusion that has inputs from both eyes and a somatosensory signal from the face. We trained the network to make gaze shifts to visual and somatosensory targets. After the network was trained, we removed the input from one eye to model the effect of an occluder lens. We discovered that the network could still make gaze shifts, but that the signals from the hidden and output layer units to the space ipsilateral to the occlusion were not as efficient as signals to the contralateral space. Underlying mechanisms may include top-down signaling from bimodal visuo-tactile brain regions to somatosensory areas and/or bottom-up signaling from superior colliculus and related structures. Our results demonstrate that congruent inputs from visual, somatosensory, and proprioceptive modalities are necessary for the unified interpretation and efficient navigation of peripersonal space.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".