Effect before Cause: Supramodal Recalibration of Sensorimotor Timing

Heron, James; Hanson, James Vincent Michael; Whitaker, David

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007681

Cited by 94 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…PSS was shifted approximately 20% of the trained discrepancy in both directions. This is consistent with our earlier results (Rohde & Ernst, 2013), where participants shifted 20-25% of the trained discrepancy but less than in other studies, where PSS-shifts of the order of 30-44% are reported for visuomotor delay adaptation (Stetson et al, 2006;Heron et al, 2009;Sugano et al, 2010).…”

Section: Temporal Order Judgmentssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…While this result supports our conclusion that ML recalibration is biased towards a shift of the µ M criterion, it also suggests a small shift of the µ V criterion. In a similar paradigm, Heron et al (2009) only report the midpoint of the distribution (PSS), but graphical depiction of results from an example participant suggest a result similar to that reported by . However, both Heron et al (2009) and measure SJ responses at only five SOAs from the ML-side and use a Gaussian function to approximate the responses.…”

Section: Visuomotor Vs Visuo-auditory Temporal Recalibrationsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…In a similar paradigm, Heron et al (2009) only report the midpoint of the distribution (PSS), but graphical depiction of results from an example participant suggest a result similar to that reported by . However, both Heron et al (2009) and measure SJ responses at only five SOAs from the ML-side and use a Gaussian function to approximate the responses. While this is sufficient for estimation of PSS, it does not give a good impression of the shape of the response profile.…”

Section: Visuomotor Vs Visuo-auditory Temporal Recalibrationsupporting

confidence: 62%

“…It also means that participants who have undergone such training will perceive visual stimuli as preceding a button press, even when they physically occur shortly afterwards. As some researchers observed (Stetson et al, 2006;Heron et al, 2009;Rohde & Ernst, 2013), this shift in perceived temporal order violates the underlying causal structure of this kind of scenario, i.e., that a cause (voluntary button press) has to precede its effect (the visual flash). If voluntary action is involved, there is thus a causal asymmetry around the point of actual simultaneity, an asymmetry that is not present when passively perceiving the temporal order in different modalities, such as a visual flash and an auditory click.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The perceived temporal order of a voluntary movement (e.g., a button press) and a sensory stimulus (e.g., a visual flash) is no exception from this (Stetson et al, 2006;Heron et al, 2009;Sugano et al, 2010;Sugano & Vroomen, 2012;Rohde & Ernst, 2013). This means that a participant accustomed to the presence of systematic delay between such a button press and a visual flash will adjust his or her perception of perceived simultaneity of these events to partially compensate for this lag.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Asymmetries in visuomotor recalibration of time perception: Does causal binding distort the window of integration?

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recalibration of perceived visuomotor simultaneity to vision-lead and movement-lead temporal discrepancies is marked by an underlying causal asymmetry; a lagging visual stimulus may be interpreted as causally linked sensory feedback (intentional or causal binding), a leading visual stimulus not. Here, we test whether this underlying causal asymmetry leads to directional asymmetries in the temporal recalibration of visuomotor time perception using an interval estimation (IE) paradigm. Participants were trained to the presence of one of three temporal discrepancies between a motor action (button press) and a visual stimulus (flashed disk): 100 ms vision-lead, simultaneity, and 100 ms movement-lead. By adjusting a point on a visual scale, participants then estimated the interval between the visual stimulus and the button press over a range of discrepancies. Comparing the results across conditions, we found that temporal recalibration appears to be implemented nearly exclusively on the movement-lead side of the range of discrepancies by a uni-lateral lengthening or shortening of the window of temporal integration. Interestingly, this marked asymmetry does not lead to significantly asymmetrical recalibration of the point of subjective simultaneity (PSS) or to significant differences in discriminability. This confirms an earlier study, where we found no significant evidence for directional asymmetries in recalibration of PSS using a temporal order judgment paradigm (Rohde & Ernst, 2013). This seeming contradiction in the results (symmetrical recalibration of PSS and asymmetrical recalibration of interval estimation) casts a new light on common models of temporal order perception. Using a two-criterion model of temporal integration, we illustrate that a compressive bias around perceived simultaneity (temporal integration) prior to perceptual decisions would be very hard to detect in the probability distribution of responses. This in turn means that integration may happen even before perceptual judgments about order, simultaneity and durations are made. (Graphical abstract)Highlights:-Humans recalibrate visuomotor interval perception to the presence of temporal discrepancies. -Recalibration is asymmetrical and occurs mostly for movement-lead stimuli. -This is realized as one-sided compression or extension of the window of temporal integration. -Changes in the point of subjectivity are, by contrast, symmetrical. -A two-criterion model of temporal integration can resolve this seeming contradiction.

show abstract

Section: Temporal Order Judgmentssupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Visuomotor Vs Visuo-auditory Temporal Recalibrationsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Visuomotor Vs Visuo-auditory Temporal Recalibrationsupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Asymmetries in visuomotor recalibration of time perception: Does causal binding distort the window of integration?

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Neural correlates of temporal recalibration to delayed auditory feedback of active and passive movements

Schmitter,

Kufer,

Steinsträter

et al. 2023

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When we perform an action, its sensory outcomes usually follow shortly after. This characteristic temporal relationship aids in distinguishing self‐ from externally generated sensory input. To preserve this ability under dynamically changing environmental conditions, our expectation of the timing between action and outcome must be able to recalibrate, for example, when the outcome is consistently delayed. Until now, it remains unclear whether this process, known as sensorimotor temporal recalibration, can be specifically attributed to recalibration of sensorimotor (action‐outcome) predictions, or whether it may be partly due to the recalibration of expectations about the intersensory (e.g., audio‐tactile) timing. Therefore, we investigated the behavioral and neural correlates of temporal recalibration and differences in sensorimotor and intersensory contexts. During fMRI, subjects were exposed to delayed or undelayed tones elicited by actively or passively generated button presses. While recalibration of the expected intersensory timing (i.e., between the tactile sensation during the button movement and the tones) can be expected to occur during both active and passive movements, recalibration of sensorimotor predictions should be limited to active movement conditions. Effects of this procedure on auditory temporal perception and the modality‐transfer to visual perception were tested in a delay detection task. Across both contexts, we found recalibration to be associated with activations in hippocampus and cerebellum. Context‐dependent differences emerged in terms of stronger behavioral recalibration effects in sensorimotor conditions and were captured by differential activation pattern in frontal cortices, cerebellum, and sensory processing regions. These findings highlight the role of the hippocampus in encoding and retrieving newly acquired temporal stimulus associations during temporal recalibration. Furthermore, recalibration‐related activations in the cerebellum may reflect the retention of multiple representations of temporal stimulus associations across both contexts. Finally, we showed that sensorimotor predictions modulate recalibration‐related processes in frontal, cerebellar, and sensory regions, which potentially account for the perceptual advantage of sensorimotor versus intersensory temporal recalibration.

show abstract

Causality Guides Time Perception

Desantis

Buehner²

2019

The Illusions of Time

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect before Cause: Supramodal Recalibration of Sensorimotor Timing

Cited by 94 publications

References 43 publications

Asymmetries in visuomotor recalibration of time perception: Does causal binding distort the window of integration?

Asymmetries in visuomotor recalibration of time perception: Does causal binding distort the window of integration?

Neural correlates of temporal recalibration to delayed auditory feedback of active and passive movements

Causality Guides Time Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About