Authors: Peter W. Battaglia, Robert A. Jacobs, and Richard N. Aslin

COGS 272, Spring 2010 Instructor: Prof. Angela Yu Presenter:

Vikram Gupta

IntroductionBackgroundMethodsProcedureResultsDiscussion

Integration of multiple sensory and motor signals Sensory: binaural time, phase, intensity

difference Motor: orientation of the head

Typically, we receive consistent spatial cues

What if this is not true? Ex: Movie theater, television

Visual capture Vision dominates over conflicting

auditory cue. Ex: recalibration in juvenile owl

Optimal?

Winner Take All (ex. vision capture) Dominant signal exclusively decides

Blend information from sensory sources Is blending statistically optimal? Example: Maximum Likelihood Estimate▪ Assumption independent sensory signals,

normal dist.

Impact of reliability on MLE estimate

Is Normal distribution a good estimate of neural coding of sensory input?

Does this integration always occur? Or are there qualifying conditions?

Does it make sense to integrate if • Lv* and La* are far apart?

• v and a are temporally separated?

Ernst, 2006 (MLE integration for haptic and visual input

Vision capture or MLE match empirical data?

Method summary: Noise is produced at 1 of 7 locations 1.50

apart Visual stimulus has noise at 5 levels▪ 10%, 23%, 36%, 49%, 62%

Single sensory modality trial (Audio / noisy Visual ) MLE parameters predict performance for Audio + noisy Visual compare with Empirical data

Single-modality Standard stimuli

followed by comparison

Is C Left / Right of S? Bimodal

Standard stimuli has Audio and Visual apart from center

Audio and visual Comparison stimuli are co-located.

Only 1 subject aware of spatial discrepancy in S

S C

Cumulative normal distribution fits to data Mean and variance are used for MLE model

Wv receives high value when visual noise is low Wa receives high value when visual noise is high

rt = 1 comparison to the right of standard pt = , probability of rt, given

mean and variance R = set of responses to the independent

trials Assuming normal distribution, MLE

estimate of mean and variance parameters µml = 1/T * (∑ rt) σ2

ml = 1/T * (rt - µml) 2

Mean is calculated according to above weighted average

Variance is smaller than either P(L|v) or P(L|a)

MLE estimate for wv and wa are found by maximizing RHS of (3) and using (6)

tau is scale parameter or slope

Standard stimulus Visual -1.50 Audio 1.50

Point of Subjective Equality -1.10 for low visual noise 0.10 for high noise

Visual input dominates at low noise

Equal weight at high noise

MLE estimates for visual weight are significantly lower than the empirical results.

A Bayesian model with a prior that reduces variance in visual-only trials provides a good regression fit for the data.

For visual only trials, instead of using MLE for mean and variance, we multiply the RHS above with the probability of the occurrence of the normal distribution mean is assumed to have a uniform

distribution. variance is assumed to have inverse gamma

distribution with parameters biased for small variance.

Bayesian approach is a hybrid of MLE and visual capture models.

How are variances encoded?How are priors encoded?How does temporal separation in

cues impact sensory integration?Biological basis for Bayesian cue

integration?