Tactile stimulation disambiguates the perception of visual motion paths

  • Hauke S. Meyerhoff
  • Simon Merz
  • Christian Frings
Brief Report


Although visual perception traditionally has been considered to be impenetrable by non-visual information, there are a rising number of reports discussing cross-modal influences on visual perception. In two experiments, we investigated how coinciding vibrotactile stimulation affects the perception of two discs that move toward each other, superimpose in the center of the screen, and then move apart. Whereas two discs streaming past each other was the dominant impression when the visual event was presented in isolation, a brief coinciding vibrotactile stimulation at the moment of overlap biased the visual impression toward two discs bouncing off each other (Experiment 1). Further, the vibrotactile stimulation actually changed perceptual processing by reducing the amount of perceived overlap between the discs (Experiment 2), which has been demonstrated to be associated with a higher proportion of bouncing impressions. We propose that tactile-induced quantitative changes in the visual percept might alter the quality of the visual percept (from streaming to bouncing), thereby adding to the understanding of how cross-modal information interacts with early visual perception and how this interaction influences subsequent visual impressions.


Bouncing/streaming illusion Tactile transients Illusory crescent Visual-tactile interaction 



The data of the reported experiments is available at https://osf.io/nz4v3/. We would like to thank Moritz Breit for his help with the collection of the data.


  1. Falchier, A., Clavagnier, S., Barone, P., & Kennedy, H. (2002). Anatomical evidence of multimodal integration in primate striate cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 5749–5759.  https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.4.2.117 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Feldman, J., & Tremoulet, P.D. (2006). Individuation of visual objects over time. Cognition, 99, 131–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.12.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Frings, C., Amendt, A., & Spence, C. (2011). When seeing doesn't matter: Assessing the after-effects of tactile distractor processing in the blind and the sighted. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1174–1181.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022336 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Fujisaki, W., & Nishida, S. Y. (2009). Audio–tactile superiority over visuo–tactile and audio–visual combinations in the temporal resolution of synchrony perception. Experimental Brain Research, 198, 245–259.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-1870-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Grassi, M., & Casco, C. (2009). Audiovisual bounce-inducing effect: attention alone does not explain why the discs are bouncing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 235–243.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013031 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Grassi, M., & Casco, C. (2010). Audiovisual bounce-inducing effect: When sound congruence affects grouping in vision. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 378–386.  https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.2.378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grassi, M., & Casco, C. (2012). Revealing the origin of the audiovisual bounce-inducing effect. Seeing and Perceiving, 25, 223-233.  https://doi.org/10.1163/187847612X626372 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Grove, P.M., Ashton, J., Kawachi, Y., & Sakurai, K. (2012a). Auditory transients do not affect visual sensitivity in discriminating between objective streaming and bouncing events. Journal of Vision, 12(8):5, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1167/12.8.5
  9. Grove, P. M., Kawachi, Y., & Sakurai, K. (2012b). The stream/bounce effect occurs for luminance-and disparity-defined motion targets. Perception, 41, 379–388.  https://doi.org/10.1068/p6808 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Grove, P.M., & Sakurai, K. (2009). Auditory induced bounce perception persists as the probability of a motion reversal is reduced. Perception, 38, 951–965.  https://doi.org/10.1068/p5860 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kawabe, T., & Miura, K. (2006). Effects of the orientation of moving objects on the perception of streaming/bouncing motion displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 750–758.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193698 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kawachi, Y. (2016). Visual mislocalization of moving objects in an audiovisual event. PloS One, 11, e0154147.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154147 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Keetels, M., & Vroomen, J. (2008). Tactile—visual temporal ventriloquism: No effect of spatial disparity. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 70, 765–771.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.5.765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meyerhoff, H.S., Scholl, B.J. (2018). Auditory-induced bouncing is a visual (rather than a cognitive) phenomenon: Evidence from illusory crescents. Cognition, 170, 88–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.08.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. Oxford: Basic Books. [English translation by Miles T. & Miles E.; originally published as Michotte, A. (1946). La perception de la causalité. Louvain: Institut Supérior de Philosophie]Google Scholar
  16. Rauschecker, J. P., & Scott, S. K. (2009). Maps and streams in the auditory cortex: Nonhuman primates illuminate human speech processing. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 718–724.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2331 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Remijn, G.B., & Ito, H. (2007). Perceptual completion in a dynamic scene: An investigation with an ambiguous motion paradigm. ision Research, 47, 1869–1879.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2007.03.017 Google Scholar
  18. Odgaard, E.C., Arieh, Y., & Marks, L.E. (2003). Cross-modal enhancement of perceived brightness: Sensory interaction versus response bias. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 65, 123–132.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pavani, F., Spence, C., & Driver, J. (2000). Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science, 11, 353–359.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00270 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neumeth.2006.11.017 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Rips, L.J. (2011). Causation from perception. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 77–97.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393525 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rock, I., & Victor, J. (1964). Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 143(3606), 594–596.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.143.3606.594 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Scholl, B.J., & Nakayama, K. (2004). Illusory causal crescents: Misperceived spatial relations due to perceived causality. Perception, 33, 455–470.  https://doi.org/10.1068/p5172 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sekuler, R., Sekuler, A.B., & Lau, R. (1997). Sound alters visual motion perception. Nature, 385, 308.  https://doi.org/10.1038/385308a0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). Illusions: What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408(6814), 788.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35048669 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2001). Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions. Current opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 505–509.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00241-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Van der Burg, E., Olivers, C.N., Bronkhorst, A.W., & Theeuwes, J. (2009). Poke and pop: Tactile–visual synchrony increases visual saliency. Neuroscience Letters, 450, 60–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2008.11.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Violentyev, A., Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2005). Touch-induced visual illusion. Neuroreport, 16(10), 1107–1110.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200507130-00015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Watanabe, K. (2001). Crossmodal interaction in humans. Unpublished dissertation, California Institute of Technology: Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Watanabe, K., & Shimojo, S. (1998). Attentional modulation in perception of visual motion events. Perception, 27, 1041–1054.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Watanabe, K., & Shimojo, S. (2001). When sound affects vision: Effects of auditory grouping on visual motion perception. Psychological Science, 12, 109–116.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00319 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Watanabe, K., & Shimojo, S. (2005). Crossmodal attention in event perception. In: L. Itti, G. Rees, & J. Tsotsos (Eds.). Neurobiology of attention (pp. 538-543).Google Scholar
  33. Warren, D. H., Welch, R. B., & McCarthy, T. J. (1981). The role of visual-auditory “compellingness” in the ventriloquism effect: Implications for transitivity among the spatial senses. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 30, 557–564.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhou, F., Wong, V., & Sekuler, R. (2007). Multi-sensory integration of spatio-temporal segmentation cues: One plus one does not always equal two. Experimental Brain Research, 180, 641–654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-0897-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hauke S. Meyerhoff
    • 1
  • Simon Merz
    • 2
  • Christian Frings
    • 2
  1. 1.Leibniz-Institut für WissensmedienTübingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TrierTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations