Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24244523›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Touch influences visual perception with a tight orientation-tuning.

Onno van der Groen, Erik van der Burg, Claudia Lunghi, David Alais

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Onno van der GroenDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik van der Burg
Claudia Lunghi
David Alais

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stimuli from different sensory modalities are thought to be processed initially in distinct unisensory brain areas prior to convergence in multisensory areas. However, signals in one modality can influence the processing of signals from other modalities and recent studies suggest this cross-modal influence may occur early on, even in 'unisensory' areas. Some recent psychophysical studies have shown specific cross-modal effects between touch and vision during binocular rivalry, but these cannot completely rule out a response bias. To test for genuine cross-modal integration of haptic and visual signals, we investigated whether congruent haptic input could influence visual contrast sensitivity compared to incongruent haptic input in three psychophysical experiments using a two-interval, two-alternative forced-choice method to eliminate response bias. The initial experiment demonstrated that contrast thresholds for a visual grating were lower when exploring a haptic grating that shared the same orientation compared to an orthogonal orientation. Two subsequent experiments mapped the orientation and spatial frequency tunings for the congruent haptic facilitation of vision, finding a clear orientation tuning effect but not a spatial frequency tuning. In addition to an increased contrast sensitivity for iso-oriented visual-haptic gratings, we found a significant loss of sensitivity for orthogonally oriented visual-haptic gratings. We conclude that the tactile influence on vision is a result of a tactile input to orientation-tuned visual areas.

Indexed as

OrientationTouchVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhotic StimulationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24244523
PMCPMC3828350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.