|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 10. (A,C) Novelty responses (NRs) to stronger stimulus intensities. These
intensities were more effective at eliciting NRs than the stimuli applied in
the main body of evidence of the current paper. The object's minimum lateral
distance was 1.9 cm and the DC field was >600 µVcm –1.
A and C show the baseline-subtracted spike density functions (SDFs) during the
rotation of a multimodal stimulus object and its component unimodal object
stimuli. Some of the unisensory responses have nearly equivalent magnitude as
their multisensory response. B and D show the actual and the calculated
baseline-subtracted SDFs. The calculated NRs have a greater or approximately
equal NR area and duration. Linear and sublinear multisensory integration
probably results from the relatively high intensity of the unimodal stimuli.
(E) Tub+Amp responses can be suppressed by the addition of a LL stimulus.
Therefore, the multisensory response curve is dependent upon the relative
strength of each component. (F) While LL stimulation can cause response
suppression, ampullary responses remained directly related to DC stimulus
strength. The progression in DC field strength is nonlinear. Tub, tuberous
electrosense; Amp, ampullary electrosense; LL, mechanosensory lateral
line.
|
