There has been a growing body of evidence since the mid-90’s on the neural correlates of multimodal perception. In fact, the principle of inverse effectiveness states that you are less likely to benefit from additional cues from other modalities if the initial unimodal stimulus is strong enough ( Stein & Meredith, 1993).īecause we are able to process multimodal sensory stimuli, and the results of those processes are qualitatively different from those of unimodal stimuli, it’s a fair assumption that the brain is doing something qualitatively different when they’re being processed. ![]() If you were having a quiet conversation at a café, you likely wouldn’t need these additional cues. This can explain how you’re still able to understand what friends are saying to you at a loud concert, as long as you are able to get visual cues from watching them speak. Interestingly, we actually respond more strongly to multimodal stimuli compared to the sum of each single modality together, an effect called the super additive effect of multisensory integration. Information from one sense has the potential to influence how we perceive information from another, a process called multimodal perception. It shouldn’t shock you to find out that at some point information from each of our senses becomes integrated. This should be clear after reading the description of walking through the forest at the beginning of the module it was the combination of senses that allowed for that experience. ![]() Though we have spent the majority of this module covering the senses individually, our real-world experience is most often multimodal, involving combinations of our senses into one perceptual experience.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |