Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25589294›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2015

Learning to integrate contradictory multisensory self-motion cue pairings.

Mariia Kaliuzhna, Mario Prsa, Steven Gale, Stella J Lee, Olaf Blanke

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. On the Role of Interoception in Body and Object Perception: A Multisensory-Integration Account.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Crossmodal associations modulate multisensory spatial integration.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Bayesian Alternation during Tactile Augmentation.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2016
    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

5 authors.

Mariia KaliuzhnaCenter for Neuroprosthetics, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Mario PrsaCenter for Neuroprosthetics, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Steven GaleCenter for Neuroprosthetics, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Stella J LeeCenter for Neuroprosthetics, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Olaf BlankeCenter for Neuroprosthetics, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience, Brain Mind Institute, School of Life Science, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Department of Neurology, University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans integrate multisensory information to reduce perceptual uncertainty when perceiving the world and self. Integration fails, however, if a common causality is not attributed to the sensory signals, as would occur in conditions of spatiotemporal discrepancies. In the case of passive self-motion, visual and vestibular cues are integrated according to statistical optimality, yet the extent of cue conflicts that do not compromise this optimality is currently underexplored. Here, we investigate whether human subjects can learn to integrate two arbitrary, but co-occurring, visual and vestibular cues of self-motion. Participants made size comparisons between two successive whole-body rotations using only visual, only vestibular, and both modalities together. The vestibular stimulus provided a yaw self-rotation cue, the visual a roll (Experiment 1) or pitch (Experiment 2) rotation cue. Experimentally measured thresholds in the bimodal condition were compared with theoretical predictions derived from the single-cue thresholds. Our results show that human subjects combine and optimally integrate vestibular and visual information, each signaling self-motion around a different rotation axis (yaw vs. roll and yaw vs. pitch). This finding suggests that the experience of two temporally co-occurring but spatially unrelated self-motion cues leads to inferring a common cause for these two initially unrelated sources of information about self-motion. We discuss our results in terms of specific task demands, cross-modal adaptation, and spatial compatibility. The importance of these results for the understanding of bodily illusions is also discussed.

Indexed as

CuesAdultFemaleHumansLearningMotion PerceptionPsychomotor PerformanceReflex, Vestibulo-OcularVestibule, LabyrinthYoung Adultmultisensory conflictmultisensory integrationself-motionvestibular

Identifiers

PMID25589294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.