Sound-induced flash illusion (SiFI) refers to the illusion that the number of visual flashes is equal to the number of auditory sounds when the visual flashes are accompanied by an unequal number of auditory sounds presented within 100 ms. The effect of repetition suppression (RS), an adaptive effect caused by stimulus repetition, upon the SiFI has not been investigated. Based on the classic SiFI paradigm, the present study investigated whether RS would affect the SiFI differently by adding preceding stimuli in visual and auditory modalities prior to the appearance of audiovisual stimuli. The results showed the auditory RS effect on the SiFI varied with the number of preceding auditory stimuli. The hit rate was higher with two preceding auditory stimuli than one preceding auditory stimulus in fission illusion, but it did not affect the size of the fusion illusion. However, the visual RS had no effect on the size of the fission and fusion illusions. The present study suggested that RS could affect the SiFI, indicating that the RS effect in different modalities would differentially affect the magnitude of the SiFI. In the process of multisensory integration, the visual and auditory modalities had asymmetrical RS effects.
BarronH. C.GarvertM. M.BehrensT. E. J. (2016).
Repetition suppression: A means to index neural representations using BOLD?Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences,
371, 20150355. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0355
4.
BuddT. W.BarryR. J.GordonE.RennieC.MichieP. T. (1998).
Decrement of the N1 auditory event-related potential with stimulus repetition: Habituation vs. refractoriness. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
31, 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(98)00040-3
5.
ChenQ.ZhouX. L. (2013).
Vision dominates at the preresponse level and audition dominates at the response level in cross-modal interaction: Behavioral and neural evidence. Journal of Neuroscience,
33, 7109–7121. https://doi.org/10.1523/Jneurosci.1985-12.2013
6.
ChiY.YueZ.LiuY.MoL.ChenQ. (2014).
Dissociable identity and modality specific neural representations as revealed by cross-modal non-spatial inhibition of return. Human Brain Mapping,
35, 4002–4015. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22454
7.
DriverJ.NoesseltT. (2008).
Multisensory interplay reveals crossmodal influences on ‘sensory-specific’ brain regions, neural responses, and judgments. Neuron,
57, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.12.013
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009).
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,
41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
9.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007).
G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods,
39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
10.
Grill-SpectorK.HensonR.MartinA. (2006).
Repetition and the brain: Neural models of stimulus-specific effects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
10, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.11.006
11.
Grill-SpectorK.KushnirT.EdelmanS.AvidanG.ItzchakY.MalachR. (1999).
Differential processing of objects under various viewing conditions in the human lateral occipital complex. Neuron,
24, 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80832-6
12.
Grill-SpectorK.KushnirT.EdelmanS.ItzchakY.MalachR. (1998).
Cue invariant activation in object-related areas of the human occipital lobe. Neuron,
21, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80526-7
13.
Grill-SpectorK.MalachR. (2001).
FMRI adaptation: A tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons. Acta Psychologica,
107, 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(01)00019-1
HirstR. J.CraggL.AllenH. A. (2018).
Vision dominates audition in adults but not children: A meta-analysis of the Colavita effect. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,
94, 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.07.012
17.
HirstR. J.McGovernD. P.SettiA.ShamsL.NewellF. N. (2020).
What you see is what you hear: Twenty years of research using the sound-induced flash illusion. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,
118, 759–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.09.006
18.
JamesT. W.HumphreyG. K.GatiJ. S.MenonR. S.GoodaleM. A. (2000).
The effects of visual object priming on brain activation before and after recognition. Current Biology,
10, 1017–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(00)00655.2
19.
KaiserM.SenkowskiD.BuschN. A.BalzJ.KeilJ. (2019).
Single trial prestimulus oscillations predict perception of the sound-induced flash illusion. Scientific Reports,
9, 5983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42380-x
20.
KamkeM. R.ViethH. E.CottrellD.MattingleyJ. B. (2012).
Parietal disruption alters audiovisual binding in the sound-induced flash illusion. NeuroImage,
62, 1334–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.063
21.
KaposvariP.BognárA.CsibriP.UtassyG.SáryG. (2014).
Fusion and fission in the visual pathways. Physiological Research,
63, 625–635. https://doi.org/10.33549/physiolres.932691
KoelewijnT.BronkhorstA.TheeuwesJ. (2010).
Attention and the multiple stages of multisensory integration: A review of audiovisual studies. Acta Psychologica,
134, 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.010
27.
KohnA. (2007).
Visual adaptation: Physiology, mechanisms, and functional benefits. Journal of Neurophysiology,
97, 3155–3164. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00086.2007
28.
KumpikD. P.RobertsH. E.KingA. J.BizleyK. B. (2014).
Visual sensitivity is a stronger determinant of illusory processes than auditory cue parameters in the sound-induced flash illusion. Journal of Vision,
14, 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.7.12
29.
LantingC. P.BrileyP. M.SumnerC. J.KrumbholzK. (2013).
Mechanisms of adaptation in human auditory cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology,
110, 973. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00547.2012
30.
LiL.MillerE. K.DesimoneR. (1993).
The representation of stimulus familiarity in anterior inferior temporal cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology,
69, 1918–1929. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1993.69.6.1918
31.
MalachR.ReppasJ. B.BensonR. R.KwongK. K.JiangH.KennedyW. A., Ledden, P. J., Brady, T. J., Rosen, B. R., & Tootell, R. B. (1995).
Object related activity revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging in human occipital cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
92, 8135–8139. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.18.8135
McGovernD. P.RoudaiaE.StapletonJ.McGinnityT. M.NewellF. N. (2014).
The sound-induced flash illusion reveals dissociable age-related effects in multisensory integration. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience,
6, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00250
34.
MishraJ.MartinezA.HillyardS. A. (2010).
Effect of attention on early cortical processes associated with the sound-induced extra flash illusion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
22, 1714–1729. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21295
35.
MishraJ.MartinezA.SejnowskiT. J.HillyardS. A. (2007).
Early crossmodal interactions in auditory and visual cortex underlie a sound-induced visual illusion. Journal of Neuroscience,
27, 4120–4131. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.4912-06.2007
36.
OkamotoH.KakigiR. (2014).
Neural adaptation to silence in the human auditory cortex: A magnetoencephalographic study. Brain and Behavior,
4, 858–866. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.290
37.
ShamsL.IwakiS.ChawlaA.BhattacharyaJ. (2005).
Early modulation of visual cortex by sound: An MEG study. Neuroscience Letters,
378, 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2004.12.035
SobotkaS.RingoJ. L. (1994).
Stimulus specific adaptation in excited but not in inhibited cells in inferotemporal cortex of macaque. Brain Research,
646, 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(94)90061-2
41.
SobotkaS.RingoJ. L. (1996).
Mnemonic responses of single units recorded from monkey inferotemporal cortex, accessed via transcommissural versus direct pathways: A dissociation between unit activity and behavior. Journal of Neuroscience,
16, 4222–4230. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.16-13-04222.1996
SunY.LiuX.LiB.Sava-SegalC.WangA.ZhangM. (2020).
Effects of repetition suppression on sound induced flash illusion with aging. Frontiers in Psychology,
11, 216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00216
TalsmaD.SenkowskiD.SotofaracoS.WoldorffM. G. (2010).
The multifaceted interplay between attention and multisensory integration. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
14, 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.008
46.
van TurennoutM.EllmoreT.MartinA. (2000).
Long-lasting cortical plasticity in the object naming system. Nature Neuroscience,
3, 1329–1334. https://doi.org/10.1038/81873
47.
WangA.SangH.HeJ.Sava-SegalC.TangX.ZhangM. (2019).
Effects of cognitive expectation on sound-induced flash illusion. Perception,
48, 1214–1234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619885796
WetzelsR.WagenmakersE. J. (2012).
A default Bayesian hypothesis test for correlations and partial correlations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
19, 1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0295-x
51.
WinstonJ. S.HensonR. N. A.FinegouldenM. R.DolanR. J. (2004).
fMRI adaptation reveals dissociable neural representations of identity and expression in face perception. Journal of Neurophysiology,
92, 1830–1839. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00155.2004
52.
WoznyD. R.BeierholmU. R.ShamsL. (2008).
Human trimodal perception follows optimal statistical inference. Journal of Vision,
8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.3.24
53.
XiangJ. Z.BrownM. W. (1998).
Differential neuronal encoding of novelty, familiarity and recency in regions of the anterior temporal lobe. Neuropharmacology,
37, 657–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3908(98)00030-6
54.
ZhouW.JiangY.HeS.ChenD. (2010).
Olfaction modulates visual perception in binocular rivalry. Current Biology,
20, 1356–1358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.05.059
