Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32193585›Full record

SynthesisExperimental brain research2020

Do sounds near the hand facilitate tactile reaction times? Four experiments and a meta-analysis provide mixed support and suggest a small effect size.

Nicholas Paul Holmes, Dennis Martin, William Mitchell, Zeeshan Noorani, Amber Thorne

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Experimental brain research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas Paul HolmesSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. npholmes@neurobiography.info.
Dennis MartinSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK.
William MitchellSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK.
Zeeshan NooraniSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK.
Amber ThorneSchool of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AL, UK.
University of Reading · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The brain represents the space immediately surrounding the body differently to more distant parts of space. Direct evidence for this 'peripersonal space' representation comes from neurophysiological studies in monkeys, which show distance-dependent responses to visual stimuli in neurons with spatially coincident tactile responses. Most evidence for peripersonal space in humans is indirect: spatial- and distance-dependent modulations of reaction times and error rates in behavioural tasks. In one task often used to assess peripersonal space, sounds near the body have been argued to speed reactions to tactile stimuli. We conducted four experiments attempting to measure this distance-dependent audiotactile interaction. We found no distance-dependent enhancement of tactile processing in error rates or task performance, but found some evidence for a general speeding of reaction times by 9.5 ms when sounds were presented near the hand. A systematic review revealed an overestimation of reported effect sizes, lack of control conditions, a wide variety of methods, post hoc removal of data, and flexible methods of data analysis. After correcting for the speed of sound, removing biased or inconclusive studies, correcting for temporal expectancy, and using the trim-and-fill method to correct for publication bias, meta-analysis revealed an overall benefit of 15.2 ms when tactile stimuli are accompanied by near sounds compared to sounds further away. While this effect may be due to peripersonal space, response probability and the number of trials per condition explained significant proportions of variance in this near versus far benefit. These confounds need to be addressed, and alternative explanations ruled out by future, ideally pre-registered, studies.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionPersonal SpaceReaction TimeTask Performance and AnalysisTouch PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleSound LocalizationYoung AdultAuditionGo/NoGoMultisensoryReaction timeTouchVibrotactile

Identifiers

PMID32193585
PMCPMC7181441
OpenAlexW3012381479

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.