Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29238295›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2017

Audio-Visual Integration in a Redundant Target Paradigm: A Comparison between Rhesus Macaque and Man.

Peter Bremen, Rooholla Massoudi, Marc M Van Wanrooij, A J Van Opstal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Optimising reaction-time analysis in eye movement perimetry using pooled promptness distributions.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Sound Improves Neuronal Encoding of Visual Stimuli in Mouse Primary Visual Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Multisensory Neurons in the Primate Amygdala.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Peter BremenDepartment of Biophysics, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Rooholla MassoudiDepartment of Biophysics, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Marc M Van WanrooijDepartment of Biophysics, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
A J Van OpstalDepartment of Biophysics, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mechanisms underlying multi-sensory interactions are still poorly understood despite considerable progress made since the first neurophysiological recordings of multi-sensory neurons. While the majority of single-cell neurophysiology has been performed in anesthetized or passive-awake laboratory animals, the vast majority of behavioral data stems from studies with human subjects. Interpretation of neurophysiological data implicitly assumes that laboratory animals exhibit perceptual phenomena comparable or identical to those observed in human subjects. To explicitly test this underlying assumption, we here characterized how two rhesus macaques and four humans detect changes in intensity of auditory, visual, and audio-visual stimuli. These intensity changes consisted of a gradual envelope modulation for the sound, and a luminance step for the LED. Subjects had to detect any perceived intensity change as fast as possible. By comparing the monkeys' results with those obtained from the human subjects we found that (1) unimodal reaction times differed across modality, acoustic modulation frequency, and species, (2) the largest facilitation of reaction times with the audio-visual stimuli was observed when stimulus onset asynchronies were such that the unimodal reactions would occur at the same time (response, rather than physical synchrony), and (3) the largest audio-visual reaction-time facilitation was observed when unimodal auditory stimuli were difficult to detect, i.e., at slow unimodal reaction times. We conclude that despite marked unimodal heterogeneity, similar multisensory rules applied to both species. Single-cell neurophysiology in the rhesus macaque may therefore yield valuable insights into the mechanisms governing audio-visual integration that may be informative of the processes taking place in the human brain.

Indexed as

auditoryinverse effectivenessmonkeymulti-sensorynon-human primateoperant conditioningreaction times

Identifiers

PMID29238295
PMCPMC5712580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.