ArticleNeuropsychologia2016
Interactions between space and effectiveness in human multisensory performance.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breathing-driven modulation of reticulospinal tract activity.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Crossmodal semantic congruence and rarity improve episodic memory.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Automatic multisensory integration follows subjective confidence rather than objective performance.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- The Development of Multisensory Integration at the Neuronal Level.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Resolution of impaired multisensory processing in autism and the cost of switching sensory modality.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Aberrant causal inference and presence of a compensatory mechanism in autism spectrum disorder.eLife · 2022Article
- Individual Differences in Multisensory Interactions:The Influence of Temporal Phase Coherence and Auditory Salience on Visual Contrast Sensitivity.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Absent Audiovisual Integration Elicited by Peripheral Stimuli in Parkinson's Disease.Parkinson's disease · 2018Article
- Shifts in Audiovisual Processing in Healthy Aging.Current behavioral neuroscience reports · 2017Article
- The variability of multisensory processes of natural stimuli in human and non-human primates in a detection task.PloS one · 2017Article
- Stimulus intensity modulates multisensory temporal processing.Neuropsychologia · 2016Article
- Multisensory Integration in Cochlear Implant Recipients.Ear and hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several stimulus factors are important in multisensory integration, including the spatial and temporal relationships of the paired stimuli as well as their effectiveness. Changes in these factors have been shown to dramatically change the nature and magnitude of multisensory interactions. Typically, these factors are considered in isolation, although there is a growing appreciation for the fact that they are likely to be strongly interrelated. Here, we examined interactions between two of these factors - spatial location and effectiveness - in dictating performance in the localization of an audiovisual target. A psychophysical experiment was conducted in which participants reported the perceived location of visual flashes and auditory noise bursts presented alone and in combination. Stimuli were presented at four spatial locations relative to fixation (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°) and at two intensity levels (high, low). Multisensory combinations were always spatially coincident and of the matching intensity (high-high or low-low). In responding to visual stimuli alone, localization accuracy decreased and response times (RTs) increased as stimuli were presented at more eccentric locations. In responding to auditory stimuli, performance was poorest at the 30° and 60° locations. For both visual and auditory stimuli, accuracy was greater and RTs were faster for more intense stimuli. For responses to visual-auditory stimulus combinations, performance enhancements were found at locations in which the unisensory performance was lowest, results concordant with the concept of inverse effectiveness. RTs for these multisensory presentations frequently violated race-model predictions, implying integration of these inputs, and a significant location-by-intensity interaction was observed. Performance gains under multisensory conditions were larger as stimuli were positioned at more peripheral locations, and this increase was most pronounced for the low-intensity conditions. These results provide strong support that the effects of stimulus location and effectiveness on multisensory integration are interdependent, with both contributing to the overall effectiveness of the stimuli in driving the resultant multisensory response.
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.