Hello from the other side: Robust contralateral interference in tactile detection.

Touch is unique among the sensory modalities in that our tactile receptors are spread across the body surface and continuously receive different inputs at the same time. These inputs vary in type, properties, relevance according to current goals, and, of course, location on the body. Sometimes, they must be integrated, and other times set apart and distinguished. Here, we investigate how simultaneous stimulation to different body sites affects tactile cognition. Specifically, we characterized the impact of irrelevant tactile sensations on tactile change detection. To this end, we embedded detection targets amidst ongoing performance, akin to the conditions encountered in everyday life, where we are constantly confronted with new events within ongoing stimuli. In the set of experiments presented here, participants detected a brief intensity change (.04 s) within an ongoing vibrotactile stimulus (1.6 s) that was always presented in a constantly attended location. The intensity change (i.e., the detection target) varied parametrically, from hardly detectable to easily detectable. In half of the trials, irrelevant ongoing stimulation was simultaneously presented to a site across the body midline, but participants were instructed to ignore it. In line with previous bimanual studies employing brief onset targets, we document robust interference on performance due to the irrelevant stimulation at each of the measured body sites (homologous and nonhomologous fingers, and the contralateral ankle). After describing this basic phenomenon, we further examine the conditions under which such interference occurs in three additional tasks. In each task, we honed in on a different aspect of the stimulation protocol (e.g., hand distance, the strength of the irrelevant stimulation, the detection target itself) in order to better understand the principles governing the observed interference effects. Our findings suggest a minimal role for exogenous attentional capture in producing the observed interference effects (Exp. 2), and a principled distribution of attentional resources or sensory integration between body sides (Exps. 3, 4). In our last study (Exp. 4), we presented bilateral tactile targets of varying intensities to both the relevant and irrelevant stimulation sites. We then characterized the degree to which the irrelevant stimulation is also processed. Our results-that participants' perception of target intensity is always proportional to the combined bilateral signal-suggest that both body sites are equally weighed and processed despite clear instructions to attend only the target site. In light of this observation and participants' inability to use selection processes to guide their perception, we propose that bilateral tactile inputs are automatically combined, quite possibly early in the hierarchy of somatosensory processing.

When Temporal Certainty Doesn't Help.

In a dynamically changing environment, the ability to capture regularities in our sensory input helps us generate predictions about future events. In most sensory systems, the basic finding is clear: Knowing when something will happen improves performance on it [Nobre, A. C., & van Ede, F. (2017). Anticipated moments: Temporal structure in attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 19, 34-48, 2017]. We here examined the impact of temporal predictions on a less-explored modality: touch. Participants were instructed to detect a brief target embedded in an ongoing vibrotactile stimulus. Unbeknownst to them, the experiment had two timing conditions: In one part, the time of target onset was fixed and thus temporally predictable, whereas in the other, it could appear at a random time within the ongoing stimulation. We found a clear modulation of detection thresholds due to temporal predictability: Contrary to other sensory systems, detecting a predictable tactile target was worse relative to unpredictable targets. We discuss our findings within the framework of tactile suppression.

Where Does Time Go When You Blink?

Retinal input is frequently lost because of eye blinks, yet humans rarely notice these gaps in visual input. Although previous studies focused on the perceptual and neural correlates of diminished awareness to blinks, the impact of these correlates on the perceived time of concurrent events is unknown. Here, we investigated whether the subjective sense of time is altered by spontaneous blinks. We found that participants (N = 22) significantly underestimated the duration of a visual stimulus when a spontaneous blink occurred during stimulus presentation and that this underestimation was correlated with the blink duration of individual participants. Importantly, the effect was not present when durations of an auditory stimulus were judged (N = 23). The results point to a link between spontaneous blinks, previously demonstrated to induce activity suppression in the visual cortex, and a compression of subjective time. They suggest that ongoing encoding within modality-specific sensory cortices, independent of conscious awareness, informs the subjective sense of time.