Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27918886›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2017

Computational principles and models of multisensory integration.

Chandramouli Chandrasekaran

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing 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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Somatosensory Cortex and Body Representation: Updating the Motor System during a Visuoproprioceptive Cue Conflict.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. From Multisensory Integration to Multisensory Decision-Making.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Chandramouli ChandrasekaranDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Electronic address: mouli@stanford.edu.

Funding

Organization and Dynamics of Premotor and Prefrontal Cortical Circuits Mediating Goal-Directed BehaviorK99NS092972 · NINDS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI CHANDRASEKARAN, CHANDRAMOULI · 2015 to 2016
$175k
NINDS NIH HHS K99 NS092972
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Combining information from multiple senses creates robust percepts, speeds up responses, enhances learning, and improves detection, discrimination, and recognition. In this review, I discuss computational models and principles that provide insight into how this process of multisensory integration occurs at the behavioral and neural level. My initial focus is on drift-diffusion and Bayesian models that can predict behavior in multisensory contexts. I then highlight how recent neurophysiological and perturbation experiments provide evidence for a distributed redundant network for multisensory integration. I also emphasize studies which show that task-relevant variables in multisensory contexts are distributed in heterogeneous neural populations. Finally, I describe dimensionality reduction methods and recurrent neural network models that may help decipher heterogeneous neural populations involved in multisensory integration.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalBayes TheoremHumansLearningNerve NetSensation

Identifiers

PMID27918886
PMCPMC5447489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.