Biomedical subjects

Sergei Gepshtein

Publications and source records attributed to Sergei Gepshtein.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

The combination of vision and touch depends on spatial proximity.

The nervous system often combines visual and haptic information about object properties such that the combined estimate is more precise than with vision or haptics alone. We examined how the system determines when to combine the signals. Presumably, signals should not be combined when they come from different objects. The likelihood that signals come from different objects is highly correlated with the spatial separation between the signals, so we asked how the spatial separation between visual and haptic signals affects their combination. To do this, we first created conditions for each observer in which the effect of combination--the increase in discrimination precision with two modalities relative to performance with one modality--should be maximal. Then under these conditions, we presented visual and haptic stimuli separated by different spatial distances and compared human performance with predictions of a model that combined signals optimally. We found that discrimination precision was essentially optimal when the signals came from the same location, and that discrimination precision was poorer when the signals came from different locations. Thus, the mechanism of visual-haptic combination is specialized for signals that coincide in space.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Optimal compensation for changes in task-relevant movement variability.

Effective movement planning should take into account the consequences of possible errors in executing a planned movement. These errors can result from either sensory uncertainty or variability in movement planning and production. We examined the ability of humans to compensate for variability in sensory estimation and movement production under conditions in which variability is increased artificially by the experimenter. Subjects rapidly pointed at a target region that had an adjacent penalty region. Target and penalty hits yielded monetary rewards and losses. We manipulated the task-relevant variability by perturbing visual feedback of finger position during the movement. The feedback was shifted in a random direction with a random amplitude in each trial, causing an increase in the task-relevant variability. Subjects were unable to counteract this form of perturbation. Rewards and penalties were based on the perturbed, visually specified finger position. Subjects rapidly acquired an estimate of their new variability in <120 trials and adjusted their aim points accordingly. We compared subjects' performance to the performance of an optimal movement planner maximizing expected gain. Their performance was consistent with that expected from an optimal movement planner that perfectly compensated for externally imposed changes in task-relevant variability. When exposed to novel stimulus configurations, aim points shifted in the first trial without showing any detectable trend across trials. These results indicate that subjects are capable of changing their pointing strategy in the presence of externally imposed noise. Furthermore, they manage to update their estimate of task-relevant variability and to transfer this estimate to novel stimulus configurations.

Adaptation, Physiological↗

PubMed2004

Stability and change in perception: spatial organization in temporal context.

Perceptual multistability has often been explained using the concepts of adaptation and hysteresis. In this paper we show that effects that would typically be accounted for by adaptation and hysteresis can be explained without assuming the existence of dedicated mechanisms for adaptation and hysteresis. Instead, our data suggest that perceptual multistability reveals lasting states of the visual system rather than changes in the system caused by stimulation. We presented observers with two successive multistable stimuli and found that the probability that they saw the favored organization in the first stimulus was inversely related to the probability that they saw the same organization in the second. This pattern of negative contingency is orientation-tuned and occurs no matter whether the observer had or had not seen the favored organization in the first stimulus. This adaptation-like effect of negative contingency combines multiplicatively with a hysteresis-like effect that increases the likelihood of the just-perceived organization. Both effects are consistent with a probabilistic model in which perception depends on an orientation-tuned intrinsic bias that slowly (and stochastically) changes its orientation tuning over time.

Adaptation, Physiological↗

PubMed2004

Why is spatial stereoresolution so low?

Spatial stereoresolution (the finest detectable modulation of binocular disparity) is much poorer than luminance resolution (finest detectable luminance variation). In a series of psychophysical experiments, we examined four factors that could cause low stereoresolution: (1) the sampling properties of the stimulus, (2) the disparity gradient limit, (3) low-pass spatial filtering by mechanisms early in the visual process, and (4) the method by which binocular matches are computed. Our experimental results reveal the contributions of the first three factors. A theoretical analysis of binocular matching by interocular correlation reveals the contribution of the fourth: the highest attainable stereoresolution may be limited by (1) the smallest useful correlation window in the visual system, and (2) a matching process that estimates the disparity of image patches and assumes that disparity is constant across the patch. Both properties are observed in disparity-selective neurons in area V1 of the primate (Nienborg et al., 2004).

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Viewing geometry determines how vision and haptics combine in size perception.

Vision and haptics have different limitations and advantages because they obtain information by different methods. If the brain combined information from the two senses optimally, it would rely more on the one providing more precise information for the current task. In this study, human observers judged the distance between two parallel surfaces in two within-modality experiments (vision-alone and haptics-alone) and in an intermodality experiment (vision and haptics together). In the within-modality experiments, the precision of visual estimates varied with surface orientation, as expected from geometric considerations; the precision of haptic estimates did not. An ideal observer that combines visual and haptic information weights them differently as a function of orientation. In the intermodality experiment, humans adjusted visual and haptic weights in a fashion quite similar to that of the ideal observer. As a result, combined size estimates are finer than is possible with either vision or haptics alone; indeed, they approach statistical optimality.

Adult↗