Trial reportPloS one2015
Forced fusion in multisensory heading estimation.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distilling noise characteristics and prior expectations in multisensory causal inference.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Decoding self-motion: insights into visual-vestibular causal inference.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Review
- Effects of visual cues on scene-relative object motion judgments and concurrent heading estimation from optic flow.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Environmental motion presented ahead of self-motion modulates heading direction estimation.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- The interplay of uncertainty, relevance and learning influences auditory categorization.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Visuo-tactile heading perception.Journal of neurophysiology · 2022Article
- Audiovisual spatial recalibration but not integration is shaped by early sensory experience.iScience · 2022Article
- Effect of timing delay between visual and vestibular stimuli on heading perception.Journal of neurophysiology · 2021Article
- The Untapped Potential of Virtual Reality in Rehabilitation of Balance and Gait in Neurological Disorders.Frontiers in virtual reality · 2021Article
- Assessing the contribution of active somatosensory stimulation to self-acceleration perception in dynamic driving simulators.PloS one · 2021Article
- Multisensory neural processing: from cue integration to causal inference.Current opinion in physiology · 2020Article
- Common causation and offset effects in human visual-inertial heading direction integration.Journal of neurophysiology · 2020Article
- Multisensory Interactions in Head and Body Centered Perception of Verticality.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Article
- Effect of range of heading differences on human visual-inertial heading estimation.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
- Causal inference accounts for heading perception in the presence of object motion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Body-relative horizontal-vertical anisotropy in human representations of traveled distances.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
- Bayesian comparison of explicit and implicit causal inference strategies in multisensory heading perception.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- Causal Inference in the Perception of Verticality.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Effect of vibration during visual-inertial integration on human heading perception during eccentric gaze.PloS one · 2018Article
- Effect of eye position during human visual-vestibular integration of heading perception.Journal of neurophysiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been shown that the Central Nervous System (CNS) integrates visual and inertial information in heading estimation for congruent multisensory stimuli and stimuli with small discrepancies. Multisensory information should, however, only be integrated when the cues are redundant. Here, we investigated how the CNS constructs an estimate of heading for combinations of visual and inertial heading stimuli with a wide range of discrepancies. Participants were presented with 2s visual-only and inertial-only motion stimuli, and combinations thereof. Discrepancies between visual and inertial heading ranging between 0-90° were introduced for the combined stimuli. In the unisensory conditions, it was found that visual heading was generally biased towards the fore-aft axis, while inertial heading was biased away from the fore-aft axis. For multisensory stimuli, it was found that five out of nine participants integrated visual and inertial heading information regardless of the size of the discrepancy; for one participant, the data were best described by a model that explicitly performs causal inference. For the remaining three participants the evidence could not readily distinguish between these models. The finding that multisensory information is integrated is in line with earlier findings, but the finding that even large discrepancies are generally disregarded is surprising. Possibly, people are insensitive to discrepancies in visual-inertial heading angle because such discrepancies are only encountered in artificial environments, making a neural mechanism to account for them otiose. An alternative explanation is that detection of a discrepancy may depend on stimulus duration, where sensitivity to detect discrepancies differs between people.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.