2026-10-14T02:43:07Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/34026655 2026-09-29T17:36:59Z category_15 category_16 category_21 category_39 category_45 category_734 category_811 category_122 category_132 portal_5 item_type_1 month_year_09_2026

<p>A) Comparison of model variants testing cueing vs. integration hypotheses.</p> Hüseyin O. Elmas (25138381) W. Pieter Medendorp (9536749) Luke E. Miller (25138384) Neuroscience Physiology Biotechnology Ecology Sociology Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified Mathematical Sciences not elsewhere classified Mental Health Infectious Diseases specified via proprioception identical prior expectations distinct computational mechanisms touch merely cues body whose position several bayesian models integration hypothesis </ div >< p cueing hypothesis </ proprioceptive localization rely proprioceptive localization integrating touch body ’ bayesian perspective bayesian computations spatial coordinates present study posture information mosquito ’ mosquito lands modalities provided important implications first formalized external space everyday behaviors away requires 3d posture <p>The Independent Model (top) allows separate priors (, ) and likelihoods (, ) for tactile (t) and proprioceptive (p) conditions. The Fully Shared Model (bottom) uses identical priors () and likelihoods (). The arrows illustrate the computational flow: prior and likelihood are combined via integration () to produce a posterior distribution (). B) 2D Bayesian inference showing how spatial localization (posterior; green) emerges from combining prior expectations (blue) with sensory evidence (likelihood; red). As can be seen, the presence of a prior leads to a localization error (i.e., offset between likelihood and posterior).</p> 2026-09-29T17:36:56Z Image Figure 10.1371/journal.pone.0358656.g001 https://figshare.com/articles/figure/_p_A_Comparison_of_model_variants_testing_cueing_vs_integration_hypotheses_p_/34026655 CC BY 4.0