Trial reportPloS one2021
When two is worse than one: The deleterious impact of multisensory stimulation on response inhibition.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating the validity of the hue-heat effect on thermal sensitivity.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A touching advantage: cross-modal stop-signals improve reactive response inhibition.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Article
- Auditory or Audiovisual Stimulation Ameliorates Cognitive Impairment and Neuropathology in ApoE4 Knock-In Mice.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multisensory facilitation is known to improve the perceptual performances and reaction times of participants in a wide range of tasks, from detection and discrimination to memorization. We asked whether a multimodal signal can similarly improve action inhibition using the stop-signal paradigm. Indeed, consistent with a crossmodal redundant signal effect that relies on multisensory neuronal integration, the threshold for initiating behavioral responses is known for being reached faster with multisensory stimuli. To evaluate whether this phenomenon also occurs for inhibition, we compared stop signals in unimodal (human faces or voices) versus audiovisual modalities in natural or degraded conditions. In contrast to the expected multisensory facilitation, we observed poorer inhibition efficiency in the audiovisual modality compared with the visual and auditory modalities. This result was corroborated by both response probabilities and stop-signal reaction times. The visual modality (faces) was the most effective. This is the first demonstration of an audiovisual impairment in the domain of perception and action. It suggests that when individuals are engaged in a high-level decisional conflict, bimodal stimulation is not processed as a simple multisensory object improving the performance but is perceived as concurrent visual and auditory information. This absence of unity increases task demand and thus impairs the ability to revise the response.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.