Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T16:15:58.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supra-optimality may emanate from suboptimality, and hence optimality is no benchmark in multisensory integration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

Jean-Paul Noel Open the ORCID record for Jean-Paul Noel [Opens in a new window]
Jean-Paul Noel*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt Brain Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240. jean-paul.noel@vanderbilt.eduhttp://jeanpaulnoel.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within a multisensory context, “optimality” has been used as a benchmark evidencing interdependent sensory channels. However, “optimality” does not truly bifurcate a spectrum from suboptimal to supra-optimal – where optimal and supra-optimal, but not suboptimal, indicate integration – as supra-optimality may result from the suboptimal integration of a present unisensory stimuli and an absent one (audio = audio + absence of vision).

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alais, D. & Burr, D. (2004) The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology 14(3):257–62. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.029.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, M. S. (2005) Statistical criteria in fMRI studies of multisensory integration. Neuroinformatics 3(2):93–113. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1385/NI.Google Scholar
Ernst, M. O. & Banks, M. S. (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415(6870):429–33. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/415429a.Google Scholar
Fetsch, C. R., Turner, A. H., DeAngelis, G. C. & Angelaki, D. E. (2009) Dynamic reweighting of visual and vestibular cues during self-motion perception. Journal of Neuroscience 29:15601–12.Google Scholar
Frens, M. A. & Van Opstal, A. J. (1998) Visual-auditory interactions modulate saccade-related activity in monkey superior colliculus. Brain Research Bulletin 46:211–24.Google Scholar
Schroeder, C. E., Wilson, D. A., Radman, T., Scharfman, H. & Lakatos, P. (2010) Dynamics of active sensing and perceptual selection. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 20:172–76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.010Google Scholar
Shalom, S. & Zaidel, A. (2018) Better than optimal. Neuron 97(3):484–87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2018.01.041.Google Scholar
Stein, B. E. & Meredith, M. A. (1993) The merging of the senses. MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Beers, R. J., Sittig, A. C. & Denier van der Gon, J. J. (1999) Integration of proprioceptive and visual position-information: An experimentally supported model. Journal of Neurophysiology 81:1355–64.Google Scholar