ArticlePloS one2017
The variability of multisensory processes of natural stimuli in human and non-human primates in a detection task.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- When two is worse than one: The deleterious impact of multisensory stimulation on response inhibition.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Audiovisual estimation of Time-to-contact.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Auditory-tactile presentation accelerates target detection in a multitasking situation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- The order of multisensory associative sequences is reinstated as context feature during successful recognition.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Automatic multisensory integration follows subjective confidence rather than objective performance.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Review
- Atypical Multisensory Integration and the Temporal Binding Window in Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2020Article
- Cross-Modal Cue Effects in Motion Processing.Multisensory research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBehavioral studies in both human and animals generally converge to the dogma that multisensory integration improves reaction times (RTs) in comparison to unimodal stimulation. These multisensory effects depend on diverse conditions among which the most studied were the spatial and temporal congruences. Further, most of the studies are using relatively simple stimuli while in everyday life, we are confronted to a large variety of complex stimulations constantly changing our attentional focus over time, a modality switch that can impact on stimuli detection. In the present study, we examined the potential sources of the variability in reaction times and multisensory gains with respect to the intrinsic features of a large set of natural stimuli. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE
findingsRhesus macaque monkeys and human subjects performed a simple audio-visual stimulus detection task in which a large collection of unimodal and bimodal natural stimuli with semantic specificities was presented at different saliencies. Although we were able to reproduce the well-established redundant signal effect, we failed to reveal a systematic violation of the race model which is considered to demonstrate multisensory integration. In both monkeys and human species, our study revealed a large range of multisensory gains, with negative and positive values. While modality switch has clear effects on reaction times, one of the main causes of the variability of multisensory gains appeared to be linked to the intrinsic physical parameters of the stimuli. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Based on the variability of multisensory benefits, our results suggest that the neuronal mechanisms responsible of the redundant effect (interactions vs. integration) are highly dependent on the stimulus complexity suggesting different implications of uni- and multisensory brain regions. Further, in a simple detection task, the semantic values of individual stimuli tend to have no significant impact on task performances, an effect which is probably present in more cognitive tasks.
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.