Looming Signals Reveal Synergistic Principles of Multisensory Integration

By Céline Cappe, Antonia Thelen, Vincenzo Romei, Gregor Thut, Micah M. Murray. 2012

99 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Multisensory interactions are a fundamental feature of brain organization. Principles governing multisensory processing have been established by varying stimulus location, timing and efficacy independently. Determining whether and how such principles operate when stimuli vary dynamically in their perceived distance (as when looming/receding) provides an assay for synergy among the above principles and also means for linking multisensory interactions between rudimentary stimuli with higher-order signals used for communication and motor planning. Human participants indicated movement of looming or receding versus static stimuli that were visual, auditory, or multisensory combinations while 160-channel EEG was recorded. Multivariate EEG analyses and distributed source estimations were performed. Nonlinear interactions between looming signals were observed at early poststimulus latencies (∼75 ms) in analyses of voltage waveforms, global field power, and source estimations. These looming-specific interactions positively correlated with reaction time facilitation, providing direct links between neural and performance metrics of multisensory integration. Statistical analyses of source estimations identified looming-specific interactions within the right claustrum/insula extending inferiorly into the amygdala and also within the bilateral cuneus extending into the inferior and lateral occipital cortices. Multisensory effects common to all conditions, regardless of perceived distance and congruity, followed (∼115 ms) and manifested as faster transition between temporally stable brain networks (vs summed responses to unisensory conditions). We demonstrate the early-latency, synergistic interplay between existing principles of multisensory interactions. Such findings change the manner in which to model multisensory interactions at neural and behavioral/perceptual levels. We also provide neurophysiologic backing for the notion that looming signals receive preferential treatment during perception.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sensory Systems

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sensory Systems

Citations in the corpus

Top-down control and early multisensory processes: chicken vs. egg (2015, background): “…(Giard and Peronnet, 1999; Fort et al., 2002b; TederSälejärvi et al., 2002; Gondan and Röder, 2006; Gondan et al., 2007; Raij et al., 2010; Cappe et al., 2010, 2012; Stekelenburg and Vroomen, 2012; Stekelenburg et al., 2013) tasks to multi-stimulus/ multistream paradigms necessitating…”
How prior expectations shape multisensory perception (2016, background): “…on the role of spatiotemporal and higher‐order (e.g. semantic) bottom-up congruency cues in shaping multisensory integration (Bonath et al., 2014; Cappe et al., 2012; Hein et al., 2007; Körding et al., 2007; Laurienti et al., 2004; Lee and Noppeney, 2014, 2011; Lewis and Noppeney, 2010;…”
The multisensory function of the human primary visual cortex. (2016, background): “…scalp (Fort et al., 2002a; Giard and Peronnet, 1999; Molholm et al., 2002; Vidal et al., 2008; Senkowski et al., 2011; Stekelenburg and Vroomen, 2012; Cappe et al., 2012; Altieri et al., 2015; see also Stevenson et al. (2012) as well as Barth et al. (1995) for corresponding data in the rat brain).”
Contextual factors multiplex to control multisensory processes (2016, background): “In the latter, we expected to observe nonlinear response interactions between ERPs to AV stimuli and the summed responses to unisensory stimuli (i.e., A 1 V) [e.g., Cappe et al., 2010, 2012].”
Single-trial multisensory memories affect later auditory and visual object discrimination. (2015, unknown): “Cappe et al. (2012) found that increases in neuronal response strength at early latencies were positively correlated with multisensory gains in a motion discrimination task.”
Multisensory integration: flexible use of general operations (2014, unknown): “The principle of spatial correspondence, a simplified version of which states that inputs are more likely to be integrated when they overlap in space, might be more dependent on task requirements than previously thought (Cappe et al., 2012; Girard et al., 2011; Sperdin et al., 2010).”
Identifying and Quantifying Multisensory Integration: A Tutorial Review (2014, methodology): “The emphasis will be on the most commonly employed measures, including single- and multiunit responses, LFP, fMRI, electroencephalography (EEG), along with behavioral measures of detection, accuracy, and RTs.”
Multimodal interaction: A review (2014, background): “…or so, there has been an influx of new discoveries and research in the area of crossmodal integration of sensory inputs – i.e., how some neurons respond to stimulation in more than one modality (Andersen, 1997; Calvert et al., 1998; Calvert, 2001; Lewkowicz and Kraebel, 2004; Cappe et al., 2012 ).”
The Curious Incident of Attention in Multisensory Integration: Bottom-up vs. Top-down (2016, unknown): “Studies using more naturalistic, meaningful stimuli, such as speech fragments and movie clips have indicated that semantic congruence (Cappe et al., 2012; McGurk and Macdonald, 1976; Tuomainen et al., 2005) between visual and auditory stimuli also strongly influences multisensory processing.”
Auditory distance perception in humans: a review of cues, development, neuronal bases, and effects of sensory loss (2015, background): “This adaptive bias may be due to the perceived biological importance of looming sounds, which potentially indicate an oncoming threat or collision or successful acquisition of desirable objects or goals (Cappe et al., 2012).”
The efficacy of single-trial multisensory memories. (2013, background): “…object processing have generally concentrated on how information from one sensory modality impacts behaviour and/or brain responses to information from another sensory modality (e.g. Amedi et al., 2005; Naci et al., 2012; Cappe et al., 2010, 2012; Murray et al. 2012; Beer et al., 2013).”