Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Perceiving Loudness, Pitch, and Location

Perceiving Loudness, Pitch, and Location

The human brain perceives pitch through two primary mechanisms reflected in place theory and frequency theory. Each mechanism describes how sound waves are interpreted as specific pitches by the brain, offering insights into the intricate processes of auditory perception.
Place theory, or place coding, suggests that different pitches are heard because various sound waves activate specific locations along the cochlea's basilar membrane. The brain determines the pitch of a sound by...

Chunking and Rehearsal in Sensory Memory

Chunking and Rehearsal in Sensory Memory

Improving short-term memory can be achieved through techniques like chunking and rehearsal. Chunking involves organizing information into larger, more manageable units. This technique is particularly useful for information that exceeds the typical memory span of between five and nine items. For instance, logging into an online account with a password like "ta89vq0179gz" involves grouping letters and numbers into three chunks—ta89, vq01, and 79gz. It makes large amounts of...

Hearing

Hearing

When we hear a sound, our nervous system is detecting sound waves—pressure waves of mechanical energy traveling through a medium. The frequency of the wave is perceived as pitch, while the amplitude is perceived as loudness.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Humans use underestimates of auditory spatial and temporal uncertainty for perceptual inference.

Proceedings. Biological sciences·2025

Same author

Precision-based causal inference modulates audiovisual temporal recalibration.

eLife·2025

Same author

Multisensory causal inference is feature-specific, not object-based.

Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences·2023

Same author

The hands' default location guides tactile spatial selectivity.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2023

Same author

Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception.

PLoS computational biology·2021

Same author

Exposure to 16 h of normobaric hypoxia induces ionic edema in the healthy brain.

Nature communications·2021

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 2, 2025

Testing Sensory and Multisensory Function in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Testing Sensory and Multisensory Function in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Published on: April 22, 2015

Audiovisual simultaneity windows reflect temporal sensory uncertainty.

Emma Cary¹, Ilona Lahdesmaki¹, Stephanie Badde²

¹Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

|February 22, 2024

Summary

Observers adjust their audiovisual simultaneity decision boundaries based on their temporal sensory uncertainty. This indicates subjective criteria for audiovisual timing flexibly adapt to individual measurement error, optimizing multisensory perception.

Keywords:

Auditory Decision criteria Ideal observer models Multisensory integration Perception Simultaneity judgment Temporal Uncertainty Visual

More Related Videos

Applying Incongruent Visual-Tactile Stimuli during Object Transfer with Vibro-Tactile Feedback

Applying Incongruent Visual-Tactile Stimuli during Object Transfer with Vibro-Tactile Feedback

Published on: May 23, 2019

A Two-interval Forced-choice Task for Multisensory Comparisons

A Two-interval Forced-choice Task for Multisensory Comparisons

Published on: November 9, 2018

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 2, 2025

Testing Sensory and Multisensory Function in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Testing Sensory and Multisensory Function in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Published on: April 22, 2015

Applying Incongruent Visual-Tactile Stimuli during Object Transfer with Vibro-Tactile Feedback

Applying Incongruent Visual-Tactile Stimuli during Object Transfer with Vibro-Tactile Feedback

Published on: May 23, 2019

A Two-interval Forced-choice Task for Multisensory Comparisons

A Two-interval Forced-choice Task for Multisensory Comparisons

Published on: November 9, 2018

Area of Science:

Cognitive Neuroscience
Psychophysics
Auditory-Visual Perception

Background:

Accurate judgment of audiovisual temporal alignment is crucial for multisensory integration and segregation.
Temporal measurements are inherently prone to error, necessitating subjective decision boundaries to interpret audiovisual signals.
Understanding how sensory uncertainty influences these decision boundaries is key to explaining perceptual flexibility.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate whether subjective decision boundaries for audiovisual simultaneity are adjusted in response to increasing temporal sensory uncertainty.
To determine if observers' adjustments align with predictions for an ideal observer facing sensory noise.
To explore the relationship between virtual environment, temporal uncertainty, and simultaneity criteria.

Main Methods:

Participants judged the simultaneity of audiovisual stimulus pairs with varying temporal offsets across different virtual environments.
An independent-channels model was employed to estimate participants' temporal sensory uncertainty and simultaneity criteria.
Data from two experiments were analyzed to correlate decision boundaries with estimated temporal uncertainty.

Main Results:

Participants' simultaneity decision boundaries were significantly predicted by their estimated temporal sensory uncertainty.
Temporal uncertainty varied unsystematically across the tested virtual environments.
Subjective criteria for audiovisual simultaneity were flexibly updated based on individual uncertainty estimates.

Conclusions:

Observers dynamically adjust their audiovisual simultaneity criteria based on their current cross-modal temporal uncertainty.
This adaptive strategy suggests that audiovisual simultaneity windows are not fixed but reflect an individual's real-time estimation of sensory noise.
The findings highlight the brain's sophisticated mechanisms for managing sensory uncertainty in multisensory processing.