body schema and multisensory integration Flashcards

1
Q

moravec’s paradox

A

reasoning (high-level cognitive) is relatively easy to program computers to do
e.g. can give them all possible scenarios in a game of chess - other skills like walking they cannot sense all the unknown variables

perception (low-level) is difficult to program
e.g. can’t walk well as they don’t have a body schema

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

define body schema

A

representation of the positions of body parts in space → updated during body movement
mostly non-conscious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

define body image

A

not same as body schema

how you imagine your body, how you feel about your body
mostly visual
can have affective response to it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

characteristics of body schema (7)

A

modular
different body parts processed separately in different brain regions

spatially coded
representation of position of each body part in external space

updated with movement
automated and continuous tracking of body posture

adaptable
changes when the body changes, long-term, gradually over time, tools

interpersonal
other’s actions are represented within the same body schema
understanding of other peoples action in relation to own
mirror neurons

coherent
spatial continuity
resolves perceptual conflicts (source of illusions)
don’t want to think there are multiple possible realities and so combines them to make one most logical reality
pinocchio illusion: muscle in arm is stimulated so your arm feels like its moving away from you
so when holding your nose it feels very far away

supramodal integration
transcends sensory modality
combines input from multiple sensory sources:
vision, sound, touch, and proprioception

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

peripersonal space

A

space immediately surrounding out bodies
special awareness of this space
objects here can be grasped and manipulated immediately

it isn’t fixed - can be extended
e.g. holding a stick so you can push things from a distance - becomes an extension of your arm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

peripersonal space in brain - study in monkeys

A

have monkey by a table - baseline visual response to things on that table

as the arm is extended, the area around it will have heightened responses to it
* more response in brain to things in that areas than beyond it

this occurs when they are holding a tool too - further extends the area of peripersonal space

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

disorder of body image

A

autotopagnosia
body schema not affected as they can still perform actions with the unconscious awareness of where their arm is for movement - action execution is generally preserved

inability to locate body parts
loss of spatial unity of body
can name body parts but not relative order
e.g. know what a head is but couldn’t tell you it is next to the neck

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

disorder of body schema

A

ideomotor apraxia

inability to execute actions - especially related to tools
e.g. knows what a key is but cannot mimic the action of unlocking a door

body image is generally preserved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

disorder of body schema and image

A

alice in wonderland syndrome

distorted size perception

microsomatognosia = body parts appear smaller
macrosomatognosia = body parts appear larger

  • can affect how they move → wont jump in a room as they think they will hit the ceiling
  • it is not linear - can walk into a room and then think your head will touch the ceiling even though you just walked through the door
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

temporal order judgement task

A

stimulate hands one then the other - random order
participant responds which hand was stimulated first
sometimes stimulated at same time - so they guess left or right

2 conditions - hands crossed or hands normal

results
more uncertain with arms crossed - give wrong answer more often especially with smaller gap between each stimulation (more ambiguous)
shows body schema is updated with movement and effects perception

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

development of body schema study

A

baby with uncrossed feet vs crossed
squeeze one foot and see which foot they look at

results
4 months old - no effect of perception
less accurate with age - as perception causes conflict
body schema develops around 5-6 months

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

multisensory integration

A

touch + vision + audition = multisensory integration → for coherent perception

e.g. know that the cup you see and the one can feel is the same object - coherence

vision = eye-centred/retinal = location of visual stimulus on the retina
audition = head-centred = location of sound source with respect to ears
touch = body-centred = location of tactile stimulus on skin
* need to combine all of these frames of references into a single map of the world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

frame of reference issues

A

e.g. knowing “left” to one person is “right” to another

constantly updating frame of reference to understand world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

coordinate transformations

A

e.g. looking at a dog as it moves

if you look with eyes and don’t move head, the perception from both is different
e.g. head is pointing forwards but eyes are pointing left

need to know about alignment to combine these to know true direction of the dog
alignment of eye-to-head (orientation of eyes) and head-to-body (orientation of head)

convert between these using knowledge of position and orientation of body parts (body schema)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

cross-modal integration - lab study

A

method
* participants hold a box with two fingers
* given tactile stimulation (buzz) and respond which finger was stimulated (up or down)
* measured reaction time
* visual stimulation (up or down) also presented on same or different hand
* not relevant to the task, but interferes with performance
* can be congruent or incongruent

congruency effect = reaction time for incongruent minus reaction time for congruent response

in = 700ms
con = 638ms
congruency effect = 62ms

results
found congruency effect for both hands
evidence for cross-modal integration
this effect is smaller but still there when on the other hand

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

cross-modal integration with arm crossing - lab study

A

change mapping of body schema by crossing arms

effect of visual distracter moves with the hand (e.g. still tactile on right hand)

body schema mediates integration between vision and tactile stimulation

almost no congruency effect with visual on non-tactile hand → same hand = 67, other hand = 3

shows cross-modal interactions are mediated by body schema

17
Q

cross-modal integration with tool use crossing - lab study

A

incorporation of the tool into body schema during use - mediate multisensory integration/localisation

hold a stick in each hand with the lights on the end of the sticks, tactile stimulation is still to fingers

cross-modal congruency effects apply during tool use

  • uncrossed condition → same = 74, other = 54
  • crossed condition = no crossing of arms → only tools are crossed → same = 79, other = 37

same delay effects seen as if arms were crossed → shows integration into body schema of tools

18
Q

neural mechanisms with body schema

A

visuotactile interactions - same neurons that respond to both visual and tactile stimuli in many cortical and some subcortical areas

19
Q

sensory conflicts - why study it

A

finding limits of perception to discover the mechanisms behind it

mind as a black box - can find out rules within by trying different inputs and seeing the outputs

brain tries to make one coherent reality - resolves conflicts sometimes incorrectly

20
Q

sensory conflict examples - visual and proprioception (1)

A

the train next to you moves and for a moment you feel you’re moving too

visually, movement would look the same even without proprioception - then the conflict is resolved quite quickly

21
Q

sensory conflicts examples - visual and sounds (2)

A

videos where you hear whatever you read at the time

McGurk effect
hear a different sound when you watch someone mouth the word vs not
* saying “ba” but mouthing “da” so with eyes closed you hear “ba” (auditory stimuli) and with eyes open you hear “da” (visual stimuli)
* visual stimulation changes what you hear

22
Q

reasons for sensory uncertainty (3)

A
  • perceptual limits - e.g. visual resolution depends on photoreceptors on fovea
  • neural noise - none of our senses are fool proof, never 100% clear what is being transmitted - synaptic noise = random noise going on at same time which interrupts the signal
  • cognitive resource limits - by attending to something, the signal is stronger and so could take over what we experience - e.g. told to attend to other object during McGurk effect experiment, therefore the effect was reduced as they didn’t look at the face - attention as an amplification of signal
23
Q

multisensory integration and attention - what effects what

A

attention can affect how multisensory signals are integrated (top-down influence)
* e.g. McGurk effect
multisensory signals can also influence attention
* e.g. have to find the vertical or horizontal bar amongst others
* one condition - auditory signal played at same time a horizontal or vertical bar was presented
* improved reaction speed by seconds (massive difference)

cyclical → multisensory integration is both pre-attentive and depends on attention

24
Q

theories of sensory conflicts (3 - list)

A
  1. visual dominance
  2. modality precision
  3. weighting based on uncertainty
25
Q

sensory conflict - visual dominance lab study

A

task = judge size of an object by vision and touch (object on a blanket with hand underneath to feel it)

object looks small but feels big (altered the look of an object - viewed through lens making it look smaller

results = visual dominance - object size is determined by vision more than by touch

idea that visual cortex takes up a lot of space relative to other senses - therefore assume dominance

26
Q

modality precision theory of sensory conflicts

A

vision will sometimes dominate - but not on all tasks
* spatial task = visual dominance
* temporal task = auditory dominance
* hearing is more sensitive to time than vision

27
Q

modality precision lab study

A

task = report number of visual flashes on the screen (very short flashes)

auditory beeps (1-4) played during flashes

results = interested on conditions when one flash was shown with multiple beeps, more flashes were reported as seen

this is a temporal task - counting things in time not in space

28
Q

weighting based on uncertainty

A

vision will sometimes dominate - but not on all tasks
* spatial task = visual dominance
* temporal task = auditory dominance
hearing is more sensitive to time than vision

changing sensory uncertainty in one sense
do we dynamically adapt? or assume constant uncertainty for a given sense/task?

29
Q

weighting based on uncertainty - lab study set up and method

A

task = judge the height of a bar

create discrepancy between visual and haptic input - can change visual and tactile uncertainty independently

setup
* wear goggles, in a “virtual reality” setup - changed what they see and changes the height of the bar
* add visual noise - makes it less clear what they see - causes conflict between vision and touch

method
manipulating size:
* show virtual bar with sensory conflict (is 5cm but looks 6cm)
* compare this against one without conflict (5.5cm) - which one is taller/shorter
* determine point of subjective equality (PSE) = point at which people cannot distinguish which object is taller - have to guess at this point
* then manipulate sensory uncertainty of visual feedback - add in visual noise

30
Q

weighting based on uncertainty - lab study results

A

60mm = visual bar height
50mm = haptic bar height

no visual noise = PSE - 58mm
perception biased towards visual input

67% visual noise = PSE - 57mm
perception biased towards visual input - only slight change

100% visual noise = PSE - 55mm
perception both visual and haptic - between the two - decreased visual dominance with increased uncertainty

200% visual noise (yellow) = PSE - 52mm
perception biased towards haptics

31
Q

normative vs process model of sensory conflicts

A

normative model
how it should be solved - optimal solution
based on theory - not real life
can establish bounds - best we could do so how close do humans get to this standard

process model
how a problem is actually solved
based on data from real life

comparison of these two models to see how optimally humans act

32
Q

LOOK AT END OF NOTION

A

about graphs with signals of different levels of uncertainty

high vs low uncertainty
two conflicting senses of equal uncertainty
two conflicting sense of unequal uncertainty

33
Q

normative vs process model of sensory conflicts - results from study

A

humans compute very similarly to the optimum
therefore use these uncertainty ideas in real life
graph is very similar to the optimum/predicted graph

34
Q

MLE

A

maximum likelihood estimation
normative model which allows us to calculate the optimal way to integrate information
* more weight on inputs with low sensory uncertainty
* uncertainty is reduced after integration
* this models how humans act

35
Q

correspondence problems

A

issue of determining whether two signals come from the same source - common cause
use statistical properties of signals
looks for correlation over space and time

36
Q

neural correlates and uncertainty

A

recent research has found some - more research is needed