Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32499378›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2020

Selective Enhancement of Object Representations through Multisensory Integration.

David A Tovar, Micah M Murray, Mark T Wallace

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Bridging the Gap Between Believing and Memory Functions.Europe's journal of psychology · 2023
    Article
  11. Visual Influences on Auditory Behavioral, Neural, and Perceptual Processes: A Review.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2021
    Review
  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

3 authors.

David A TovarSchool of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37240 david.tovar@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5449-6289
Micah M MurrayThe Laboratory for Investigative Neurophysiology (The LINE), Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne (CHUV-UNIL), 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7821-117X
Mark T WallaceSchool of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37240.ORCID 0000-0002-0166-906X

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007347 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAMS, CHRISTOPHER S. · 1985 to 2023
$26.3M
Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM152284 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI Christopher S. Williams · 2024 to 2026
$4.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007347NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM152284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objects are the fundamental building blocks of how we create a representation of the external world. One major distinction among objects is between those that are animate versus those that are inanimate. In addition, many objects are specified by more than a single sense, yet the nature by which multisensory objects are represented by the brain remains poorly understood. Using representational similarity analysis of male and female human EEG signals, we show enhanced encoding of audiovisual objects when compared with their corresponding visual and auditory objects. Surprisingly, we discovered that the often-found processing advantages for animate objects were not evident under multisensory conditions. This was due to a greater neural enhancement of inanimate objects-which are more weakly encoded under unisensory conditions. Further analysis showed that the selective enhancement of inanimate audiovisual objects corresponded with an increase in shared representations across brain areas, suggesting that the enhancement was mediated by multisensory integration. Moreover, a distance-to-bound analysis provided critical links between neural findings and behavior. Improvements in neural decoding at the individual exemplar level for audiovisual inanimate objects predicted reaction time differences between multisensory and unisensory presentations during a Go/No-Go animate categorization task. Links between neural activity and behavioral measures were most evident at intervals of 100-200 ms and 350-500 ms after stimulus presentation, corresponding to time periods associated with sensory evidence accumulation and decision-making, respectively. Collectively, these findings provide key insights into a fundamental process the brain uses to maximize the information it captures across sensory systems to perform object recognition.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultAuditory PerceptionBrainElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationRecognition, PsychologyVisual PerceptionYoung AdultdecodingEEGmultisensory integrationobject recognitionrepresentational similarity analysis

Identifiers

PMID32499378
PMCPMC7363464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.