ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021
Perceptual timing precision with vibrotactile, auditory, and multisensory stimuli.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric functions for temporal discrimination: Duration or log duration?Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Atypical somatosensory adaptation in adults on the autism spectrum: a high-density electrophysiological (EEG) mapping study.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Keep your finger on the pulse: Better rate perception and gap detection with vibrotactile compared to visual stimuli.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Multisensory integration in humans with spinal cord injury.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Brain Functional Connectivity Changes During Learning of Time Discrimination.Basic and clinical neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing use of vibrotactile signaling devices makes it important to understand the perceptual limits on vibrotactile information processing. To promote that understanding, we carried out a pair of experiments on vibrotactile, auditory, and bimodal (synchronous vibrotactile and auditory) temporal acuity. On each trial, subjects experienced a set of isochronous, standard intervals (400 ms each), followed by one interval of variable duration (400 ± 1-80 ms). Intervals were demarcated by short vibrotactile, auditory, or bimodal pulses. Subjects categorized the timing of the last interval by describing the final pulse as either "early" or "late" relative to its predecessors. In Experiment 1, each trial contained three isochronous standard intervals, followed by an interval of variable length. In Experiment 2, the number of isochronous standard intervals per trial varied, from one to four. Psychometric modeling revealed that vibrotactile stimulation produced poorer temporal discrimination than either auditory or bimodal stimulation. Moreover, auditory signals dominated bimodal sensitivity, and inter-individual differences in temporal discriminability were reduced with bimodal stimulation. Additionally, varying the number of isochronous intervals in a trial failed to improve temporal sensitivity in either modality, suggesting that memory played a key role in judgments of interval duration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33772447What 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.