Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26884130›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2016

When audiovisual correspondence disturbs visual processing.

Sang Wook Hong, Won Mok Shim

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sang Wook HongDepartment of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd., BS 12, Room 209, Boca Raton, FL, 33431, USA. shong6@fau.edu.
Won Mok ShimDepartment of Psychology and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, HB 6207 Moore Hall, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multisensory integration is known to create a more robust and reliable perceptual representation of one's environment. Specifically, a congruent auditory input can make a visual stimulus more salient, consequently enhancing the visibility and detection of the visual target. However, it remains largely unknown whether a congruent auditory input can also impair visual processing. In the current study, we demonstrate that temporally congruent auditory input disrupts visual processing, consequently slowing down visual target detection. More importantly, this cross-modal inhibition occurs only when the contrast of visual targets is high. When the contrast of visual targets is low, enhancement of visual target detection is observed, consistent with the prediction based on the principle of inverse effectiveness (PIE) in cross-modal integration. The switch of the behavioral effect of audiovisual interaction from benefit to cost further extends the PIE to encompass the suppressive cross-modal interaction.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAnalysis of VarianceAttentionAuditory PerceptionFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationPsychophysicsReaction TimeStudentsUniversitiesVisual PerceptionAudiovisual correspondenceContrastCross-modal inhibitionMultisensory

Identifiers

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.