Bayesian Alternation During Tactile Augmentation
A large number of studies suggest that the integration of multisensory signals by humans is well described by Bayesian principles. However, there are very few reports about cue combination between a native and an augmented sense. In particular, we asked the question whether adult participants are ab...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2016-10-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00187/full |
| _version_ | 1811279762985844736 |
|---|---|
| author | Caspar Mathias Goeke Serena Planera Holger Finger Peter König Peter König |
| author_facet | Caspar Mathias Goeke Serena Planera Holger Finger Peter König Peter König |
| author_sort | Caspar Mathias Goeke |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | A large number of studies suggest that the integration of multisensory signals by humans is well described by Bayesian principles. However, there are very few reports about cue combination between a native and an augmented sense. In particular, we asked the question whether adult participants are able to integrate an augmented sensory cue with existing native sensory information. Hence for the purpose of this study we build a tactile augmentation device. Consequently, we compared different hypotheses of how untrained adult participants combine information from a native and an augmented sense. In a two-interval forced choice (2 IFC) task, while subjects were blindfolded and seated on a rotating platform, our sensory augmentation device translated information on whole body yaw rotation to tactile stimulation. Three conditions were realized: tactile stimulation only (augmented condition), rotation only (native condition), and both augmented and native information (bimodal condition). Participants had to choose one out of two consecutive rotations with higher angular rotation. For the analysis, we fitted the participants’ responses with a probit model and calculated the just notable difference (JND). Then we compared several models for predicting bimodal from unimodal responses. An objective Bayesian alternation model yielded a better prediction (χred2 = 1.67) than the Bayesian integration model (χred2= 4.34). Slightly higher accuracy showed a non-Bayesian winner takes all model (χred2= 1.64), which either used only native or only augmented values per subject for prediction. However the performance of the Bayesian alternation model could be substantially improved (χred2= 1.09) utilizing subjective weights obtained by a questionnaire. As a result, the subjective Bayesian alternation model predicted bimodal performance most accurately among all tested models. These results suggest that information from augmented and existing sensory modalities in untrained humans is combined via a subjective Bayesian alternation process. Therefore we conclude that behavior in our bimodal condition is explained better by top down-subjective weighting than by bottom-up weighting based upon objective cue reliability. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T01:01:38Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0417b7560e8a4cf8808fcfb4f7aa90a6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1662-5153 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T01:01:38Z |
| publishDate | 2016-10-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience |
| spelling | doaj.art-0417b7560e8a4cf8808fcfb4f7aa90a62022-12-22T03:09:27ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience1662-51532016-10-011010.3389/fnbeh.2016.00187211879Bayesian Alternation During Tactile AugmentationCaspar Mathias Goeke0Serena Planera1Holger Finger2Peter König3Peter König4University of OsnabrueckUniversity of OsnabrueckUniversity of OsnabrueckUniversity of OsnabrueckUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfA large number of studies suggest that the integration of multisensory signals by humans is well described by Bayesian principles. However, there are very few reports about cue combination between a native and an augmented sense. In particular, we asked the question whether adult participants are able to integrate an augmented sensory cue with existing native sensory information. Hence for the purpose of this study we build a tactile augmentation device. Consequently, we compared different hypotheses of how untrained adult participants combine information from a native and an augmented sense. In a two-interval forced choice (2 IFC) task, while subjects were blindfolded and seated on a rotating platform, our sensory augmentation device translated information on whole body yaw rotation to tactile stimulation. Three conditions were realized: tactile stimulation only (augmented condition), rotation only (native condition), and both augmented and native information (bimodal condition). Participants had to choose one out of two consecutive rotations with higher angular rotation. For the analysis, we fitted the participants’ responses with a probit model and calculated the just notable difference (JND). Then we compared several models for predicting bimodal from unimodal responses. An objective Bayesian alternation model yielded a better prediction (χred2 = 1.67) than the Bayesian integration model (χred2= 4.34). Slightly higher accuracy showed a non-Bayesian winner takes all model (χred2= 1.64), which either used only native or only augmented values per subject for prediction. However the performance of the Bayesian alternation model could be substantially improved (χred2= 1.09) utilizing subjective weights obtained by a questionnaire. As a result, the subjective Bayesian alternation model predicted bimodal performance most accurately among all tested models. These results suggest that information from augmented and existing sensory modalities in untrained humans is combined via a subjective Bayesian alternation process. Therefore we conclude that behavior in our bimodal condition is explained better by top down-subjective weighting than by bottom-up weighting based upon objective cue reliability.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00187/fullmultimodal integrationvestibular systemSensory augmentationtactile stimulationSubjective uncertaintyBayesian alternation |
| spellingShingle | Caspar Mathias Goeke Serena Planera Holger Finger Peter König Peter König Bayesian Alternation During Tactile Augmentation Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience multimodal integration vestibular system Sensory augmentation tactile stimulation Subjective uncertainty Bayesian alternation |
| title | Bayesian Alternation During Tactile Augmentation |
| title_full | Bayesian Alternation During Tactile Augmentation |
| title_fullStr | Bayesian Alternation During Tactile Augmentation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Bayesian Alternation During Tactile Augmentation |
| title_short | Bayesian Alternation During Tactile Augmentation |
| title_sort | bayesian alternation during tactile augmentation |
| topic | multimodal integration vestibular system Sensory augmentation tactile stimulation Subjective uncertainty Bayesian alternation |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00187/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT casparmathiasgoeke bayesianalternationduringtactileaugmentation AT serenaplanera bayesianalternationduringtactileaugmentation AT holgerfinger bayesianalternationduringtactileaugmentation AT peterkonig bayesianalternationduringtactileaugmentation AT peterkonig bayesianalternationduringtactileaugmentation |