Bayesian Alternation during Tactile Augmentation

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://osnadocs.ub.uni-osnabrueck.de/handle/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-2017032715740
Open Access logo originally created by the Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorGoeke, Caspar M.
dc.creatorPlanera, Serena
dc.creatorFinger, Holger
dc.creatorKönig, Peter
dc.date.accessioned2017-03-27T07:24:36Z
dc.date.available2017-03-27T07:24:36Z
dc.date.issued2017-03-27T07:24:36Z
dc.identifier.citationFrontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 10, Article 187, 2016, S. 1-14
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorium.ub.uni-osnabrueck.de/handle/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-2017032715740-
dc.description.abstractA 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 (WTA) 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.eng
dc.relationhttp://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00187/full
dc.rightsNamensnennung 4.0 International-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/-
dc.subjectsensory augmentationeng
dc.subjecttactile stimulationeng
dc.subjectvestibular systemeng
dc.subjectmultimodal integrationeng
dc.subjectBayesian alternationeng
dc.subjectsubjective uncertaintyeng
dc.subject.ddc610 - Medizin und Gesundheit
dc.titleBayesian Alternation during Tactile Augmentationeng
dc.typeEinzelbeitrag in einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift [article]
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00187
vCard.ORGFB8
Appears in Collections:FB08 - Hochschulschriften
Open-Access-Publikationsfonds

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Zeitschriftenartikel_Front_Behav_Neurosci_10_187_2016_Goeke_etal.pdf1,82 MBAdobe PDF
Zeitschriftenartikel_Front_Behav_Neurosci_10_187_2016_Goeke_etal.pdf
Thumbnail
View/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons