Tactile localization is affected by simultaneously presented visual stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the classic ventriloquism effect the perceived location of auditory and visual stimuli are shifted towards each other. Actually cues from almost any modality can be affected by information from other modalities, and the combined perception is often predictable from statistically optimal integration theory in which cues are weighted according to their reliability. Surprisingly, there have been no reports of the perceived location of touches being influenced by the optimal integration of touch with another sense. We therefore measured the perceived location of touch-light pairs. In experiment 1 supra-threshold tactile stimuli were presented either simultaneously with a light (required for the ventriloquism effect) or offset by 500ms (outside the window in which ventriloquism occurs). Subjects fixated a point positioned between two tactile stimuli separated by 7cm. Lights were presented in the same place as the touch or shifted along the arm by 3.5cm. Participants reported whether the light appeared left or right of the touch. If ventriloquism occurred, then subjects should be worse at discriminating the relative positions of the touch and light since they would be pulled closer together. When the lights and touches were presented asynchronously, participants correctly identified their relative positions. However, when they were presented synchronously, participants made more errors in identifying their relative positions suggesting that the stimuli were shifted towards each other or ‘ventriloquised’. In experiment 2 subjects reported the perceived position of a visual, tactile, or visual-tactile pair relative to a visual reference line. While the perceived position of the visuo-tactile pairs was influenced by both component stimuli, surprisingly, the variance of the multimodal responses did not decrease as would be predicted if they were integrated statistically optimally. These results are generally compatible with visuo-tactile ventriloquism. Reasons for the disassociation between the predictability of the position and the variance will be discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".