Under such conditions even neurologically healthy subjects might notice BTK inhibitor an asynchrony given actually synchronous stimuli. As for PH, his subjective asynchrony (which changed unexpectedly later in life) might just be too great for him to reconcile with the assumption of unity, even outside the lab (Vatakis and Spence, 2007; Welch and Warren, 1980). While PH’s auditory lead for PSS is not statistically abnormal, his auditory lag for optimal McGurk (tMcG) is.
This might be explained if the principle impairment caused by his lesions is actually a slowing of auditory processing, consistent with the location of his lesion on a tract connecting with the inferior colliculus, part of the early auditory system (see Supplementary Materials for an analysis of tractography). The dissociation between PH’s temporal tuning of subjective simultaneity for TOJ, versus for phoneme discrimination, suggests that each different task may probe different mechanisms, each subject to their own neural asynchronies (Aschersleben and Prinz, 1995). For example, one mechanism might be involved in speech integration and the other in judging sensory synchrony (Calvert, 2001; Miller and D’Esposito, 2005; Vroomen and Stekelenburg, 2011). The further dissociation between PSS for speech versus
non-speech would be consistent with the existence of special mechanisms for these different stimulus types (Vatakis et al., 2008). Alternatively Methane monooxygenase the same mechanisms might have different temporal tunings depending on
the low-level characteristics of the specific stimulus presented (Vroomen and Stekelenburg, 2011). From Selleck Ganetespib these dissociations it seems, at least for PH, that there are indeed multiple clocks (see Introduction), whose discrepant timings cannot be reconciled. An appealing intuition is that single physical events should be associated with a unitary percept (Welch and Warren, 1980). Evidence suggests that the brain strives for (Vatakis and Spence, 2007), and benefits from (Soto-Faraco and Alsius, 2007 and Soto-Faraco and Alsius, 2009; van Wassenhove et al., 2007) such unity. But PH shows a dramatic failure of unity, with voices subjectively leading lip-movements, at the same time as effectively lagging lip-movements for the purposes of integration. Is PH just an exception to the putative rule that unity is normally achieved? Previous studies with normal participants (using the original paradigm borrowed here) have also reported ‘dual perception’ of good lip-voice integration despite a detectable audiovisual asynchrony (Soto-Faraco and Alsius, 2007). However such violations were small when measured on average across participants, and could arguably have reflected different decision criteria for the two concurrent judgements. The TOJ task may be particularly susceptible to response biases (García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana, 2012; Soto-Faraco and Alsius, 2009; van Eijk et al., 2008).