Dataset Information

Irrelevant auditory and tactile signals, but not visual signals, interact with the target onset and modulate saccade latencies.

ABSTRACT: Saccadic eye movements bring events of interest to the center of the retina, enabling detailed visual analysis. This study explored whether irrelevant auditory (experiments A, B & F), visual (C & D) or tactile signals (E & F) delivered around the onset of a visual target modulates saccade latency. Participants were instructed to execute a quick saccade toward a target stepping left or right from a fixation position. We observed an interaction between auditory beeps or tactile vibrations and the oculomotor reaction that included two components: a warning effect resulting in faster saccades when the signal and the target were presented simultaneously; and a modulation effect with shorter-or longer-latencies when auditory and tactile signals were delivered before-or after-the target onset. Combining both modalities only increased the modulation effect to a limited extent, pointing to a saturation of the multisensory interaction with the motor control. Interestingly, irrelevant visual stimuli (black background or isoluminant noise strips in peripheral vision, flashed for 10 ms) increased saccade latency whether they were presented just before or after target onset. The lack of latency reduction with visual signals suggests that the modulation observed in the auditory and tactile experiments was not related to priming effects but rather to low-level audio- and tactile-visual integration. The increase in saccade latency observed with irrelevant visual stimuli is discussed in relation to saccadic inhibition. Our results demonstrate that signals conveying no information regarding where and when a visual target would appear modulate saccadic reactivity, much like in multisensory temporal binding, but only when these signals come from a different modality.

SUBMITTER: Vidal M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7012454 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Irrelevant auditory and tactile signals, but not visual signals, interact with the target onset and modulate saccade latencies.

Vidal Manuel M Desantis Andrea A Madelain Laurent L

PloS one 20200211 2

Saccadic eye movements bring events of interest to the center of the retina, enabling detailed visual analysis. This study explored whether irrelevant auditory (experiments A, B & F), visual (C & D) or tactile signals (E & F) delivered around the onset of a visual target modulates saccade latency. Participants were instructed to execute a quick saccade toward a target stepping left or right from a fixation position. We observed an interaction between auditory beeps or tactile vibrations and the ...[more]

PMID: 32045415

Similar Datasets

Project description:Tactile stimuli on moving limbs are typically attenuated during reach planning and execution. This phenomenon has been related to internal forward models that predict the sensory consequences of a movement. Tactile suppression is considered to occur due to a match between the actual and predicted sensory consequences of a movement, which might free capacities to process novel or task-relevant sensory signals. Here, we examined whether and how tactile suppression depends on the relevance of somatosensory information for reaching. Participants reached with their left or right index finger to the unseen index finger of their other hand (body target) or an unseen pad on a screen (external target). In the body target condition, somatosensory signals from the static hand were available for localizing the reach target. Vibrotactile stimuli were presented on the moving index finger before or during reaching or in a separate no-movement baseline block, and participants indicated whether they detected a stimulus. As expected, detection thresholds before or during reaching were higher compared with baseline. Tactile suppression was also stronger for reaches to body targets than external targets, as reflected by higher detection thresholds and lower precision of detectability. Moreover, detection thresholds were higher when reaching with the left than with the right hand. Our results suggest that tactile suppression is modulated by position signals from the target limb that are required to reach successfully to the own body. Moreover, limb dominance seems to affect tactile suppression, presumably due to disparate uncertainty of feedback signals from the moving limb.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Tactile suppression on a moving limb has been suggested to release computational resources for processing other relevant sensory events. In the current study, we show that tactile sensitivity on the moving limb decreases more when reaching to body targets than external targets. This indicates that tactile perception can be modulated by allocating processing capacities to movement-relevant somatosensory information at the target location. Our results contribute to understanding tactile processing and predictive mechanisms in the brain.

Project description:Tactile speech aids, though extensively studied in the 1980's and 1990's, never became a commercial success. A hypothesis to explain this failure might be that it is difficult to obtain true perceptual integration of a tactile signal with information from auditory speech: exploitation of tactile cues from a tactile aid might require cognitive effort and so prevent speech understanding at the high rates typical of everyday speech. To test this hypothesis, we attempted to create true perceptual integration of tactile with auditory information in what might be considered the simplest situation encountered by a hearing-impaired listener. We created an auditory continuum between the syllables /BA/ and /VA/, and trained participants to associate /BA/ to one tactile stimulus and /VA/ to another tactile stimulus. After training, we tested if auditory discrimination along the continuum between the two syllables could be biased by incongruent tactile stimulation. We found that such a bias occurred only when the tactile stimulus was above, but not when it was below its previously measured tactile discrimination threshold. Such a pattern is compatible with the idea that the effect is due to a cognitive or decisional strategy, rather than to truly perceptual integration. We therefore ran a further study (Experiment 2), where we created a tactile version of the McGurk effect. We extensively trained two Subjects over 6 days to associate four recorded auditory syllables with four corresponding apparent motion tactile patterns. In a subsequent test, we presented stimulation that was either congruent or incongruent with the learnt association, and asked Subjects to report the syllable they perceived. We found no analog to the McGurk effect, suggesting that the tactile stimulation was not being perceptually integrated with the auditory syllable. These findings strengthen our hypothesis according to which tactile aids failed because integration of tactile cues with auditory speech occurred at a cognitive or decisional level, rather than truly at a perceptual level.

Project description:Animals living in and interacting with natural environments must monitor and respond to changing conditions and unpredictable situations. Using information from multiple sensory systems allows them to modify their behavior in response to their dynamic environment but also creates the challenge of integrating different, and potentially contradictory, sources of information for behavior control. Understanding how multiple information streams are integrated to produce flexible and reliable behavior is key to understanding how behavior is controlled in natural settings. Natural settings are rarely still, which challenges animals that require precise body position control, like hummingbirds, which hover while feeding from flowers. Tactile feedback, available only once the hummingbird is docked at the flower, could provide additional information to help maintain its position at the flower. To investigate the role of tactile information for hovering control during feeding, we first asked whether hummingbirds physically interact with a feeder once docked. We quantified physical interactions between docked hummingbirds and a feeder placed in front of a stationary background pattern. Force sensors on the feeder measured a complex time course of loading that reflects the wingbeat frequency and bill movement of feeding hummingbirds, and suggests that they sometimes push against the feeder with their bill. Next, we asked whether the measured tactile interactions were used by feeding hummingbirds to maintain position relative to the feeder. We created two experimental scenarios-one in which the feeder was stationary and the visual background moved and the other where the feeder moved laterally in front of a white background. When the visual background pattern moved, docked hummingbirds pushed significantly harder in the direction of horizontal visual motion. When the feeder moved, and the background was stationary, hummingbirds generated aerodynamic force in the opposite direction of the feeder motion. These results suggest that docked hummingbirds are using visual information about the environment to maintain body position and orientation, and not actively tracking the motion of the feeder. The absence of flower tracking behavior in hummingbirds contrasts with the behavior of hawkmoths, and provides evidence that they rely primarily on the visual background rather than flower-based cues while feeding.

Dataset Information

Irrelevant auditory and tactile signals, but not visual signals, interact with the target onset and modulate saccade latencies.

Publications

Irrelevant auditory and tactile signals, but not visual signals, interact with the target onset and modulate saccade latencies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets