Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32009913›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in integrative neuroscience2019

Feedback Modulates Audio-Visual Spatial Recalibration.

Alexander Kramer, Brigitte Röder, Patrick Bruns

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Crossmodal interactions in human learning and memory.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Supervised Multisensory Calibration Signals Are Evident in VIP But Not MSTd.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  10. The Neurophysiological Basis of the Trial-Wise and Cumulative Ventriloquism Aftereffects.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexander KramerBiological Psychology and Neuropsychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Brigitte RöderBiological Psychology and Neuropsychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Patrick BrunsBiological Psychology and Neuropsychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an ever-changing environment, crossmodal recalibration is crucial to maintain precise and coherent spatial estimates across different sensory modalities. Accordingly, it has been found that perceived auditory space is recalibrated toward vision after consistent exposure to spatially misaligned audio-visual stimuli (VS). While this so-called ventriloquism aftereffect (VAE) yields internal consistency between vision and audition, it does not necessarily lead to consistency between the perceptual representation of space and the actual environment. For this purpose, feedback about the true state of the external world might be necessary. Here, we tested whether the size of the VAE is modulated by external feedback and reward. During adaptation audio-VS with a fixed spatial discrepancy were presented. Participants had to localize the sound and received feedback about the magnitude of their localization error. In half of the sessions the feedback was based on the position of the VS and in the other half it was based on the position of the auditory stimulus. An additional monetary reward was given if the localization error fell below a certain threshold that was based on participants' performance in the pretest. As expected, when error feedback was based on the position of the VS, auditory localization during adaptation trials shifted toward the position of the VS. Conversely, feedback based on the position of the auditory stimuli reduced the visual influence on auditory localization (i.e., the ventriloquism effect) and improved sound localization accuracy. After adaptation with error feedback based on the VS position, a typical auditory VAE (but no visual aftereffect) was observed in subsequent unimodal localization tests. By contrast, when feedback was based on the position of the auditory stimuli during adaptation, no auditory VAE was observed in subsequent unimodal auditory trials. Importantly, in this situation no visual aftereffect was found either. As feedback did not change the physical attributes of the audio-visual stimulation during adaptation, the present findings suggest that crossmodal recalibration is subject to top-down influences. Such top-down influences might help prevent miscalibration of audition toward conflicting visual stimulation in situations in which external feedback indicates that visual information is inaccurate.

Indexed as

crossmodal learningcrossmodal recalibrationfeedbackmultisensorysound localizationspatial perceptionsupervised learningventriloquism aftereffect

Identifiers

PMID32009913
PMCPMC6979315
OpenAlexW3000729033

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.