Two identical visual targets moving across each other can be perceived either to bounce off or to stream through each other. A brief sound at the moment the targets coincide biases perception toward bouncing. We found that this bounce-inducing effect was attenuated when other identical sounds (auditory flankers) were presented 300 ms before and after the simultaneous sound. The attenuation occurred only when the simultaneous sound and auditory flankers had similar acoustic characteristics and the simultaneous sound was not salient. These results suggest that there is an aspect of auditory-grouping (saliency-assigning) processes that is context-sensitive and can be utilized by the visual system for solving ambiguity. Further-more, control experiments revealed that such auditory context did not affect the perceptual qualities of the simultaneous sound. Because the attenuation effect is not manifest in the perception of acoustic characteristics of individual sound elements, we conclude that it is a genuine cross-modal effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BertenthalB.I.BantonT.BradburyA.
(1993).
Directional bias in the perception of translating patterns.
Perception,
22, 193–207.
2.
BregmanA.S.
(1990).
Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BregmanA.S.CampbellJ.
(1971).
Primary auditory stream segregation and perception of order in rapid sequences of tones.
Journal of Experimental Psychology,
89, 244–249.
4.
CalvertG.A.BrammerM.J.IversenS.D.
(1998).
Crossmodal identification.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
2, 247–253.
5.
DowlingW.J.
(1968).
Rhythmic fission and perceptual organization.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
44, 369.
6.
DriverJ.SpenceC.
(1998).
Attention and the cross modal construction of space.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
2, 254–262.
7.
FreemanW.T.
(1994).
The generic viewpoint assumption in a framework for visual perception.
Nature,
368, 542–545.
8.
GaverW.W.
(1993a).
How in the world do we hear? Exploration in ecological acoustics.
Ecological Psychology,
5, 285–313.
9.
GaverW.W.
(1993b).
What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception.
Ecological Psychology,
5, 1–29.
10.
GoldbergD.M.PomerantzJ.R.
(1982).
Models of illusory pausing and sticking.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
8, 547–561.
11.
HowardI.P.TempletonW.B.
(1966).
Human spatial orientation.
London: Wiley.
12.
KnillD.C.KerstenD.YuilleA.
(1996).
Introduction: A Bayesian formulation of visual perception. In
KnillD.C.RichardsW. (Eds.),
Perception as Bayesian inference (pp 1–21).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13.
LüscherE.ZwislockiJ.
(1947).
The decay of sensation and the reminder of adaptation after short pure tone impulses on the ear.
Acta Otolaryngologia,
35, 428–446.
14.
MarrD.
(1982).
Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information.
New York: W.H. Freeman.
15.
MassaroD.W.
(1970).
Retroactive interference in short-term recognition memory for pitch.
Journal of Experimental Psychology,
83, 32–39.
16.
MassaroD.W.
(1975).
Backward recognition masking.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
58, 1059–1065.
17.
MassaroD.W.CohenM.C.IdsonW.L.
(1976).
Recognition masking of auditory lat-eralization and pitch judgments.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
59, 434–441.
18.
McAdamsS.
(1984).
The auditory image: A metaphor for musical and psychological research on auditory organization. In
CrozierW.P.ChapmanA.J. (Eds.),
Cognitive process in the perception of art (pp. 289–323).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
19.
McGurkH.MacDonaldJ.W.
(1976).
Hearing lips and seeing voices.
Nature,
264, 746–748.
20.
MetzgerW.
(1934).
Beobachtungen über phänomenale Identität.
Psychologische Forschung,
19, 1–60.
21.
MichotteA.
(1963).
The perception of causality
(MilesT.R.MilesE., Trans.).
New York: Basic Books.
(Original work published 1946)
22.
MillerG.A.HeiseG.A.
(1950).
The trill threshold.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
22, 637–638.
23.
NakayamaK.ShimojoS.
(1992).
Experiencing and perceiving visual surfaces.
Science,
257, 1357–1363.
24.
RichardsW.
(1988).
The approach. In
RichardsW. (Ed.),
Natural computation (pp. 3–17).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
SchrögerE.TervaniemiM.WolffC.NäätänenR.N.
(1996).
Preattentive periodicity detection in auditory patterns as governed by time and intensity information.
Cognitive Brain Research,
4, 145–148.
26.
SekulerA.B.SekulerR.
(1999).
Collisions between moving visual targets: What controls alternative ways of seeing an ambiguous display?Perception,
28, 415–432.
StevensS.S.DavisH.
(1938).
Hearing: Its psychology and physiology.
New York: Wiley.
29.
SumiS.
(1995).
Bounce effect seen in opposite motions.
Japanese Psychological Research,
37, 195–200.
30.
ViemeisterN.F.PlackC.J.
(1993).
Time analysis. In
YostW.A.PopperA.N.FayR.R. (Eds.),
Human psychophysics (pp. 116–154).
New York: Springer.
31.
WatanabeK.ScheierC.LewkowiczD.J.ShimojoS.
(1999, October).
Temporal window for audiovisual interaction revealed with an ambiguous motion display. Poster presented at the Experimental Psychology Society Workshop on Crossmodal Attention and Multisensory Integration, Oxford, England.
32.
WatanabeK.ShimojoS.
(1998).
Attentional modulation in perception of visual motion events.
Perception,
27, 1041–1054.
33.
WatanabeK.ShimojoS.
(1999, March).
Temporal window for audiovisual integration revealed with bistable motion display. Poster presented at the Joint Symposium on Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, Elat, Israel.
