Abstract

Target localization is influenced by the presence of additionally presented nontargets, termed landmarks. In both the visual and tactile modality, these landmarks led to systematic distortions of target localizations often resulting in a shift toward the landmark. This shift has been attributed to averaging the spatial memory of both stimuli. Crucially, everyday experiences often rely on multiple modalities, and multisensory research suggests that inputs from different senses are optimally integrated, not averaged, for accurate perception, resulting in more reliable perception of cross-modal compared with uni-modal stimuli. As this could also lead to a reduced influence of the landmark, we wanted to test whether landmark distortions would be reduced when presented in a different modality or whether landmark distortions were unaffected by the modalities presented. In two experiments (each n = 30) tactile or visual targets were paired with tactile or visual landmarks. Experiment 1 showed that targets were less shifted toward landmarks from the different than the same modality, which was more pronounced for tactile than for visual targets. Experiment 2 aimed to replicate this pattern with increased visual uncertainty to rule out that smaller localization shifts of visual targets due to low uncertainty had led to the results. Still, landmark modality influenced localization shifts for tactile but not visual targets. The data pattern for tactile targets is not in line with memory averaging but seems to reflect the effects of multisensory integration, whereas visual targets were less prone to landmark distortions and do not appear to benefit from multisensory integration.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In the present study, we directly tested the predictions of two different accounts, namely, spatial memory averaging and multisensory integration, concerning the degree of landmark distortions of targets across modalities. We showed that landmark distortions were reduced across modalities compared to distortions within modalities, which is in line with multisensory integration. Crucially, this pattern was more pronounced for tactile than for visual targets.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call