ArticlePLoS computational biology2021
Causal inference regulates audiovisual spatial recalibration via its influence on audiovisual perception.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Distilling noise characteristics and prior expectations in multisensory causal inference.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Visual confidence accurately tracks increasing internal noise with eccentricity in peripheral vision.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Environmental motion presented ahead of self-motion modulates heading direction estimation.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Humans use underestimates of auditory spatial and temporal uncertainty for perceptual inference.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Precision-based causal inference modulates audiovisual temporal recalibration.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Audiovisual simultaneity windows reflect temporal sensory uncertainty.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Proprioceptive short-term memory in passive motor learning.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Multisensory causal inference is feature-specific, not object-based.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Feeling lucky? Prospective and retrospective cues for sensorimotor confidence.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Low Vision Impairs Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation in Response to Small Errors, But Not Large Errors.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2023Article
- Crossmodal interactions in human learning and memory.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Review
- Repeated exposure to either consistently spatiotemporally congruent or consistently incongruent audiovisual stimuli modulates the audiovisual common-cause prior.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Audiovisual spatial recalibration but not integration is shaped by early sensory experience.iScience · 2022Article
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
Abstract
To obtain a coherent perception of the world, our senses need to be in alignment. When we encounter misaligned cues from two sensory modalities, the brain must infer which cue is faulty and recalibrate the corresponding sense. We examined whether and how the brain uses cue reliability to identify the miscalibrated sense by measuring the audiovisual ventriloquism aftereffect for stimuli of varying visual reliability. To adjust for modality-specific biases, visual stimulus locations were chosen based on perceived alignment with auditory stimulus locations for each participant. During an audiovisual recalibration phase, participants were presented with bimodal stimuli with a fixed perceptual spatial discrepancy; they localized one modality, cued after stimulus presentation. Unimodal auditory and visual localization was measured before and after the audiovisual recalibration phase. We compared participants' behavior to the predictions of three models of recalibration: (a) Reliability-based: each modality is recalibrated based on its relative reliability-less reliable cues are recalibrated more; (b) Fixed-ratio: the degree of recalibration for each modality is fixed; (c) Causal-inference: recalibration is directly determined by the discrepancy between a cue and its estimate, which in turn depends on the reliability of both cues, and inference about how likely the two cues derive from a common source. Vision was hardly recalibrated by audition. Auditory recalibration by vision changed idiosyncratically as visual reliability decreased: the extent of auditory recalibration either decreased monotonically, peaked at medium visual reliability, or increased monotonically. The latter two patterns cannot be explained by either the reliability-based or fixed-ratio models. Only the causal-inference model of recalibration captures the idiosyncratic influences of cue reliability on recalibration. We conclude that cue reliability, causal inference, and modality-specific biases guide cross-modal recalibration indirectly by determining the perception of audiovisual stimuli.
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.