Intact Dynamic Visual Capture in People With One Eye

in Multisensory Research
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Observing motion in one modality can influence the perceived direction of motion in a second modality (dynamic capture). For example observing a square moving in depth can influence the perception of a sound to increase in loudness. The current study investigates whether people who have lost one eye are susceptible to audiovisual dynamic capture in the depth plane similar to binocular and eye-patched viewing control participants. Partial deprivation of the visual system from the loss of one eye early in life results in changes in the remaining intact senses such as hearing. Linearly expanding or contracting discs were paired with increasing or decreasing tones and participants were asked to indicate the direction of the auditory stimulus. Magnitude of dynamic visual capture was measured in people with one eye compared to eye-patched and binocular viewing controls. People with one eye have the same susceptibility to dynamic visual capture as controls, where they perceived the direction of the auditory signal to be moving in the direction of the incongruent visual signal, despite previously showing a lack of visual dominance for audiovisual cues. This behaviour may be the result of directing attention to the visual modality, their partially deficient sense, in order to gain important information about approaching and receding stimuli which in the former case could be life-threatening. These results contribute to the growing body of research showing that people with one eye display unique accommodations with respect to audiovisual processing that are likely adaptive in each unique sensory situation.

Multisensory Research

A Journal of Scientific Research on All Aspects of Multisensory Processing



Alais, D. and Burr, D. (2004). The ventriloquist effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration, Curr. Biol. 14, 257262.

Alais, D., Newell, F. N. and Mamassian, P. (2010). Multisensory processing in review: from physiology to behaviour, Seeing and Perceiving 23, 338.

Bach, D. R., Schächinger, H., Neuhoff, J. G., Esposito, F., Di Salle, F., Lehmann, C., Herdener, M., Scheffler, K. and Seifritz, E. (2008). Rising sound intensity: an intrinsic warning cue activating the amygdala, Cereb. Cortex 18, 145150.

Bowns, L., Kirshner, E. L. and Steinbach, M. J. (1994). Shear sensitivity in normal and monocularly enucleated adults, Vision Res. 34, 33893395.

Cappe, C., Morel, A., Barone, P. and Rouiller, E. M. (2009). The thalamocortical projection systems in primate: an anatomical support for multisensory and sensorimotor interplay, Cereb. Cortex 19, 20252037.

Colavita, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance, Percept. Psychophys. 16, 409412.

Colavita, F. B. and Weisberg, D. (1979). A further investigation of visual dominance, Percept. Psychophys. 25, 345347.

Egeth, H. E. and Sager, L. C. (1977). On the locus of visual dominance, Percept. Psychophys. 22, 7786.

Ernst, M. O. and Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion, Nature 415, 429433.

Freeman, R. D. and Bradley, A. (1980). Monocularly deprived humans: nondeprived eye has supernormal vernier acuity, J. Neurophys. 43, 16451653.

González, E. G., Steinbach, M. J., Ono, H. and Wolf, M. (1989). Depth perception in children enucleated at an early age, Clin. Vis. Sci. 4, 173177.

González, E. G., Steeves, J. K. E., Kraft, S. P., Gallie, B. L. and Steinbach, M. J. (2002). Foveal and eccentric acuity in one-eyed observers, Behav. Brain Res. 128, 7180.

Graziano, M. S. A. and Cooke, D. F. (2006). Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space and defensive behavior, Neuropsychologia 44, 845859.

Harris, L. R. and Jenkin, M. (Eds) (2001). Vision and Attention. Springer, New York, NY, USA.

Harrison, N. (2012). Auditory motion in depth is preferentially ‘captured’ by visual looming signals, See. Perceiv. 25, 7185.

Harrison, N. R., Witheridge, S., Makin, A., Wuerger, S. M., Pegna, A. J. and Meyer, G. F. (2015). The effects of stereo disparity on the behavioural and electrophysiological correlates of perception of audio-visual motion in depth, Neuropsychologia 78, 5162.

Hoover, A. E. N., Harris, L. R. and Steeves, J. K. E. (2012). Sensory compensation in sound localization in people with one eye, Exp. Brain Res. 216, 565574.

Howard, I. P. (2002). Seeing in Depth, Vol. 1, Basic Mechanisms. I Porteous, Thornhill, ON, Canada.

Jain, A., Sally, S. L. and Papathomas, T. V. (2008). Audiovisual short-term influences and aftereffects in motion: examination across three sets of directional pairings, J. Vis. 8, 113.

Kitagawa, N. and Ichihara, S. (2002). Hearing visual motion in depth, Nature 416, 172174.

Kitajima, N. and Yamashita, Y. (1999). Dynamic capture of sound motion by light stimuli moving in three-dimensional space, Percept. Mot. Skills 89, 11391158.

Mateeff, S., Hohnsbein, J. and Noack, T. (1985). Dynamic visual capture: apparent auditory motion induced by a moving visual target, Perception 14, 721727.

Moro, S. S. and Steeves, J. K. E. (2012). No Colavita effect: equal auditory and visual processing in people with one eye, Exp. Brain Res. 216, 367373.

Moro, S. S. and Steeves, J. K. E. (2013). No Colavita effect: increasing temporal load maintains equal auditory and visual processing in people with one eye, Neurosci. Lett. 556, 186190.

Moro, S. S., Harris, L. R. and Steeves, J. K. E. (2014). Optimal audiovisual processing in people with one eye, Multisens. Res. 27, 173188.

Nicholas, J., Heywood, C. A. and Cowey, A. (1996). Contrast sensitivity in one-eyed subjects, Vision Res. 26, 175180.

Reed, M. J., Steinbach, M. J., Ono, H., Kraft, S. and Gallie, B. (1995). Alignment ability of strabismic and eye enucleated subjects on the horizontal and oblique meridians, Vision Res. 35, 25232528.

Sinnett, S., Soto-Faraco, S. and Spence, C. (2008). The co-occurrence of multisensory competition and facilitation, Acta Psycholog. 128, 153161.

Soto-Faraco, S., Kingstone, A. and Spence, C. (2003). Multisensory contributions to the perception of motion, Neuropsychologia 41, 18471862.

Spence, C. (2009). Explaining the Colavita visual dominance effect, Prog. Brain Res. 176, 245258.

Spence, C., Parise, C. and Chen, Y.-C. (2011). The Colavita visual dominance effect, in: Frontiers in the Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes, M. M. Murray and M. Wallace (Eds), pp. 523550. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.

Steeves, J. K. E., Gray, R., Steinbach, M. J. and Regan, D. (2000). Accuracy of estimating time to collision using only monocular information in unilaterally enucleated observers and monocularly viewing normal controls, Vision Res. 40, 37833789.

Steeves, J. K. E., González, E. G., Gallie, B. L. and Steinbach, M. J. (2002). Early unilateral enucleation disrupts motion processing, Vision Res. 42, 143150.

Steeves, J. K. E., Wilkinson, F., González, E. G., Wilson, H. R. and Steinbach, M. J. (2004). Global shape discrimination at reduced contrast in enucleated observers, Vision Res. 44, 943949.

Steeves, J. K. E., González, E. G. and Steinbach, M. J. (2008). Vision with one eye: a review of visual function following monocular enucleation, Spat. Vis. 21, 509529.

Wong, N. A., Rafique, S. A., Kelly, K. R., Moro, S. S., Gallie, B. L. and Steeves, J. K. E. (2017). Altered white matter structure in the visual system following early monocular enucleation, Hum. Brain Mapp. 39, 133144.


  • A schematic illustration of the presentation of stimuli. The top row depicts audiovisual (AV) trials that were presented either congruently (visual stimulus moving in the same direction as the auditory stimulus) or incongruently (visual stimulus moving in the opposite direction of the auditory stimulus). The bottom row depicts unimodal auditory and unimodal visual conditions that were presented with stimuli moving in both the receding and looming directions.

    View in gallery
  • The reaction times (ms) for each of the BV (white), MV (grey) and ME (black) groups for unimodal conditions (top row) and bimodal conditions (bottom row). Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

    View in gallery
  • Accuracy (percent correct) for each of the BV (white), MV (grey) and ME (black) groups for unimodal conditions (top panel) and bimodal conditions (bottom panel).

    View in gallery
  • Magnitude of dynamic visual capture (difference in accuracy between bimodal cue and corresponding unimodal auditory condition) for each of the BV (white), MV (grey) and ME (black) groups.

    View in gallery


Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 17 17 11
Full Text Views 7 7 2
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 1 1 1