Sensory Attribute Identification Time Cannot Explain the Common Temporal Limit of Binding Different Attributes and Modalities
An informative performance measure of the brain's integration across different sensory attributes/modalities is the critical temporal rate of feature alternation (between, eg, red and green) beyond which observers could not identify the feature value specified by a timing signal from another at...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2011-10-01
|
| Series: | i-Perception |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1068/ic758 |
| _version_ | 1818043137082261504 |
|---|---|
| author | Waka Fujisaki Shin'ya Nishida |
| author_facet | Waka Fujisaki Shin'ya Nishida |
| author_sort | Waka Fujisaki |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | An informative performance measure of the brain's integration across different sensory attributes/modalities is the critical temporal rate of feature alternation (between, eg, red and green) beyond which observers could not identify the feature value specified by a timing signal from another attribute (eg, a pitch change). Interestingly, this limit, which we called the critical crowding frequency (CCF), is fairly low and nearly constant (∼2.5 Hz) regardless of the combination of attributes and modalities (Fujisaki & Nishida, 2010, IMRF). One may consider that the CCF reflects the processing time required for the brain to identify the specified feature value on the fly. According to this idea, the similarity in CCF could be ascribed to the similarity in identification time for the attributes we used (luminance, color, orientation, pitch, vibration). To test this idea, we estimated the identification time of each attribute from [Go/ No-Go choice reaction time – simple reaction time]. In disagreement with the prediction, we found significant differences among attributes (eg, ∼160 ms for orientation, ∼70 ms for pitch). The results are more consistent with our proposal (Fujisaki & Nishida, Proc Roy Soc B) that the CCF reflects the common rate limit of specifying what happens when (timing-content binding) by a central, presumably postdictive, mechanism. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T08:57:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-916140255bde48afbcc9b8b2c7e61595 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2041-6695 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T08:57:25Z |
| publishDate | 2011-10-01 |
| publisher | SAGE Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | i-Perception |
| spelling | doaj.art-916140255bde48afbcc9b8b2c7e615952022-12-22T01:55:22ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952011-10-01210.1068/ic75810.1068_ic758Sensory Attribute Identification Time Cannot Explain the Common Temporal Limit of Binding Different Attributes and ModalitiesWaka Fujisaki0Shin'ya Nishida1National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and TechnologyNTT Communication Science LabotatoriesAn informative performance measure of the brain's integration across different sensory attributes/modalities is the critical temporal rate of feature alternation (between, eg, red and green) beyond which observers could not identify the feature value specified by a timing signal from another attribute (eg, a pitch change). Interestingly, this limit, which we called the critical crowding frequency (CCF), is fairly low and nearly constant (∼2.5 Hz) regardless of the combination of attributes and modalities (Fujisaki & Nishida, 2010, IMRF). One may consider that the CCF reflects the processing time required for the brain to identify the specified feature value on the fly. According to this idea, the similarity in CCF could be ascribed to the similarity in identification time for the attributes we used (luminance, color, orientation, pitch, vibration). To test this idea, we estimated the identification time of each attribute from [Go/ No-Go choice reaction time – simple reaction time]. In disagreement with the prediction, we found significant differences among attributes (eg, ∼160 ms for orientation, ∼70 ms for pitch). The results are more consistent with our proposal (Fujisaki & Nishida, Proc Roy Soc B) that the CCF reflects the common rate limit of specifying what happens when (timing-content binding) by a central, presumably postdictive, mechanism.https://doi.org/10.1068/ic758 |
| spellingShingle | Waka Fujisaki Shin'ya Nishida Sensory Attribute Identification Time Cannot Explain the Common Temporal Limit of Binding Different Attributes and Modalities i-Perception |
| title | Sensory Attribute Identification Time Cannot Explain the Common Temporal Limit of Binding Different Attributes and Modalities |
| title_full | Sensory Attribute Identification Time Cannot Explain the Common Temporal Limit of Binding Different Attributes and Modalities |
| title_fullStr | Sensory Attribute Identification Time Cannot Explain the Common Temporal Limit of Binding Different Attributes and Modalities |
| title_full_unstemmed | Sensory Attribute Identification Time Cannot Explain the Common Temporal Limit of Binding Different Attributes and Modalities |
| title_short | Sensory Attribute Identification Time Cannot Explain the Common Temporal Limit of Binding Different Attributes and Modalities |
| title_sort | sensory attribute identification time cannot explain the common temporal limit of binding different attributes and modalities |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1068/ic758 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT wakafujisaki sensoryattributeidentificationtimecannotexplainthecommontemporallimitofbindingdifferentattributesandmodalities AT shinyanishida sensoryattributeidentificationtimecannotexplainthecommontemporallimitofbindingdifferentattributesandmodalities |