[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
About the Journal & Policies
Editorial Board
Articles Archive::
Current Issue
All Issues
Guide for Authors::
Author instructions
Guide for publishing in journal
Submission Form
Author's consent form
For Reviewers::
Reviewers Section
Ethical Statements::
Registration::
Registration Form
Site Facilities::
Site map
Inform to friends
Contact us::
Contact Information
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
Copyright Policies

 

AWT IMAGE

 
..
Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.

..
:: Volume 9, Issue 4 (Autumn 2021) ::
Shefaye Khatam 2021, 9(4): 41-50 Back to browse issues page
Optimal Temporal Gap between Two Different Visual Stimuli for Optimal Perception in Perceptual Decision- Making
Maryam Rafiei , Azra Jahanitabesh , Reza Ebrahimpour *
Faculty of Computer Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran , rebrahimpour@sru.ac.ir
Abstract:   (1511 Views)
Introduction: We encounter different information or stimuli. However, the combination of these stimuli and the quality of their presentation can influence our perception and decision. Despite the importance of these combined stimuli to our judgments and decisions, it is not yet clear how the characteristics of these stimuli affect the decision- making processes. For example, it is not clear whether the time interval between the information we receive can affect the accuracy and speed of decision- making. This study aimed to investigate the effect of the time interval between two different visual stimuli on perceptual decision- making. Materials and Methods: According to psychophysical experiments, it was possible to measure the response to perceptual stimuli and compare perceptual choices. In a Random Dot Motion (RDM), the task was displayed to the participants as the primary visual stimulus and a graphic cue as the second visual stimulus, at different intervals, and then the participant's decision accuracy and reaction time to each of these two stimuli were recorded and analyzed. Results: We found that in RDM (primary stimulus), the accuracy of participants' decisions is not affected by the time interval between the presentation of two stimuli. Instead, the accuracy of the response to the Cue (second visual stimulus) decreases in long time intervals between two stimuli. Interestingly, if two stimuli are presented simultaneously, the decision about each of these stimuli is reasonably accurate; yet, the speed of the decision- making process is slower than when a person encounters two stimuli separated by a time interval. Conclusion: The human visual system can distinguish visual stimuli that are presented with a short time interval in between; however, in exchange for correctly identifying these stimuli, the speed of decision- making may be slowed down.
Keywords: Decision Making, Psychophysics, Visual Perception, Reaction Time, Time Factors
Full-Text [PDF 1063 kb]   (504 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research --- Open Access, CC-BY-NC | Subject: Cognitive Neuroscience
References
1. Goldstein EB, Brockmole J. Sensation and perception. Ninth ed: Cengage Learning; 2016. P. 5-8.
2. Hanks TD, Summerfield C. Perceptual decision making in rodents, monkeys, and humans. Neuron. 2017; 93(1): 15-31. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.003]
3. Summerfield C, Tsetsos K. Building bridges between perceptual and economic decision-making: neural and computational mechanisms. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2012; 6: 70. [DOI:10.3389/fnins.2012.00070]
4. Bruce V, Green PR, Georgeson MA. Visual perception: Physiology, psychology, & ecology. Psychology Press; 2003. p. 151-2.
5. Herzog MH, Kammer T, Scharnowski F. Time slices: what is the duration of a percept? PLoS Biology. 2016; 14(4): e1002433. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002433]
6. Arstila V, Georgescu AL, Pesonen H, Lunn D, Noreika V, Falter-Wagner CM. Event timing in human vision: Modulating factors and independent functions. PLoS One. 2020; 15(8): e0226122. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0226122]
7. Poggel DA, Strasburger H. Visual perception in space and time-mapping the visual field of temporal resolution. Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis. 2004; 64(3): 427-37.
8. Rutschmann R. Perception of temporal order and relative visual latency. Science. 1966; 152(3725): 1099-101. [DOI:10.1126/science.152.3725.1099]
9. Reeves A. Temporal resolution in visual perception. Handbook of perception and action. 1: Elsevier; 1996. P. 11-24. [DOI:10.1016/S1874-5822(96)80004-1]
10. Amano K, Goda N, Nishida Sy, Ejima Y, Takeda T, Ohtani Y. Estimation of the timing of human visual perception from magnetoencephalography. Journal of Neuroscience. 2006; 26(15): 3981-91. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4343-05.2006]
11. Nothdurft H-C. Dynamic differences in the cued identification of orientation, color, and facial expressions. VPL-reports; 2020. P. 1-27.
12. Rahnev D, Denison RN. Suboptimality in perceptual decision making. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2018; 41: 1-66. [DOI:10.1017/S0140525X18000936]
13. Kiani R, Churchland AK, Shadlen MN. Integration of direction cues is invariant to the temporal gap between them. Journal of Neuroscience. 2013; 33(42): 16483-9. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2094-13.2013]
14. Tohidi-Moghaddam M, Zabbah S, Ebrahimpour R. The role of the primary information on importance of the last information in decision making. Neurosci J Shefaye Khatam. 2016; 4: 26-34. [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.shefa.4.4.26]
15. Liu T, Pleskac TJ. Neural correlates of evidence accumulation in a perceptual decision task. Journal of neurophysiology. 2011; 106(5): 2383-98. [DOI:10.1152/jn.00413.2011]
16. Shooshtari SV, Sadrabadi JE, Azizi Z, Ebrahimpour R. Confidence representation of perceptual decision by eeg and eye data in a random dot motion task. Neuroscience. 2019; 406: 510-27. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.03.031]
17. Britten KH, Shadlen MN, Newsome WT, Movshon JA. The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. Journal of Neuroscience. 1992; 12(12): 4745-65. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-12-04745.1992]
18. Zylberberg A, Fetsch CR, Shadlen MN. The influence of evidence volatility on choice, reaction time and confidence in a perceptual decision. Elife. 2016; 5: e17688. [DOI:10.7554/eLife.17688]
19. Beck VM, Hollingworth A, Luck SJ. Simultaneous control of attention by multiple working memory representations. Psychological science. 2012; 23(8): 887-98. [DOI:10.1177/0956797612439068]

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rafiei M, Jahanitabesh A, Ebrahimpour R. Optimal Temporal Gap between Two Different Visual Stimuli for Optimal Perception in Perceptual Decision- Making. Shefaye Khatam 2021; 9 (4) :41-50
URL: http://shefayekhatam.ir/article-1-2153-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 9, Issue 4 (Autumn 2021) Back to browse issues page
مجله علوم اعصاب شفای خاتم The Neuroscience Journal of Shefaye Khatam
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 45 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645