Cited by 250Multisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanismsVestibular and auditory disorders

Bayesian integration of visual and vestibular signals for heading

Open access
Butler, J. S., Smith, S. T., Campos, J. L., Bulthoff, H. H.·2010·Journal of Vision

Abstract

Self-motion through an environment involves a composite of signals such as visual and vestibular cues. Building upon previous results showing that visual and vestibular signals combine in a statistically optimal fashion, we investigated the relative weights of visual and vestibular cues during self-motion. This experiment was comprised of three experimental conditions: vestibular alone, visual alone (with four different standard heading values), and visual-vestibular combined. In the combined cue condition, inter-sensory conflicts were introduced (Δ = ±6° or ±10°). Participants performed a 2-interval forced choice task in all conditions and were asked to judge in which of the two intervals they moved more to the right. The cue-conflict condition revealed the relative weights associated with each modality. We found that even when there was a relatively large conflict between the visual and vestibular cues, participants exhibited a statistically optimal reduction in variance. On the other hand, we found that the pattern of results in the unimodal conditions did not predict the weights in the combined cue condition. Specifically, visual-vestibular cue combination was not predicted solely by the reliability of each cue, but rather more weight was given to the vestibular cue.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1167/10.11.23

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When a small conflict is introduced between two cues, an observer's judgment incorporates both signals but depends more on the more reliable signal.

    “In particular, if a small conflict is introduced between two cues, an observer’s judgment will incorporate both signals but depend more on the signal that is more reliable (i.e., has the lowest estimator variance) (9, 10, 21).”

    From How multisensory neurons solve causal inference. (2021) · cites this paper as [21]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Butler, J. S., Smith, S. T., Campos, J. L., & Bulthoff, H. H.
Affiliations
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Neuroscience Research Australia (AU)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Butler, J. S.
  • Smith, S. T.
  • Campos, J. L.
Venue
Journal of Vision
Published
2010-09-23
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
23-23
ISSN
1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152174583
Cited by
250
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 10
FWCI
17.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Vision (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
Keywords
heading perception, visual-vestibular integration, cue weighting, self-motion perception, vestibular cues, visual cues, variance reduction
MeSH terms
Adult, Bayes Theorem, Cues, Female, Humans, Male, Motion Perception, Photic Stimulation, Proprioception, Rotation, Vestibule, Labyrinth, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review