ArticleScientific reports2017
Sounds can boost the awareness of visual events through attention without cross-modal integration.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- When sounds control sight: Associative learning modifies perceptual transitions in binocular rivalry.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Early acquisition efficiency in visual-to-auditory sensory substitution: the role of structured learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The impact of frequency-specific music stimulation on consciousness in patients with disorders of consciousness.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Irrelevant sights and sounds require spatial suppression: ERP evidence.Psychophysiology · 2023Article
- Magnetoencephalography recordings reveal the neural mechanisms of auditory contributions to improved visual detection.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Tactile information affects alternating visual percepts during binocular rivalry using naturalistic objects.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cross-modal interactions can lead to enhancement of visual perception, even for visual events below awareness. However, the underlying mechanism is still unclear. Can purely bottom-up cross-modal integration break through the threshold of awareness? We used a binocular rivalry paradigm to measure perceptual switches after brief flashes or sounds which, sometimes, co-occurred. When flashes at the suppressed eye coincided with sounds, perceptual switches occurred the earliest. Yet, contrary to the hypothesis of cross-modal integration, this facilitation never surpassed the assumption of probability summation of independent sensory signals. A follow-up experiment replicated the same pattern of results using silent gaps embedded in continuous noise, instead of sounds. This manipulation should weaken putative sound-flash integration, although keep them salient as bottom-up attention cues. Additional results showed that spatial congruency between flashes and sounds did not determine the effectiveness of cross-modal facilitation, which was again not better than probability summation. Thus, the present findings fail to fully support the hypothesis of bottom-up cross-modal integration, above and beyond the independent contribution of two transient signals, as an account for cross-modal enhancement of visual events below level of awareness.
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.