Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35562629›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022

The magnitude of the sound-induced flash illusion does not increase monotonically as a function of visual stimulus eccentricity.

Niall Gavin, Rebecca J Hirst, David P McGovern

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07182331 (Effects of cTBS on Sensory Integration in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

NCT07182331 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Effects of cTBS on Sensory Integration in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Study Integrating Genetic Markers, MRI, fNIRS, and Temporal Binding Tasks

TypeinterventionalSponsorNeurolab PlusRan2025 to 2026Enrolled40ConditionsAutism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)ArmsContinuous Theta Burst Stimulation to Bilateral DLPFC, Sham Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Niall GavinSchool of Psychology, Dublin City University, Glasnevin Campus, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Rebecca J HirstSchool of Psychology and Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
David P McGovernSchool of Psychology, Dublin City University, Glasnevin Campus, Dublin 9, Ireland. david.p.mcgovern@dcu.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5748-2827
Dublin City University · IETrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sound-induced flash illusion (SIFI) occurs when a rapidly presented visual stimulus is accompanied by two auditory stimuli, creating the illusory percept of two visual stimuli. While much research has focused on how the temporal proximity of the audiovisual stimuli impacts susceptibility to the illusion, comparatively less research has focused on the impact of spatial manipulations. Here, we aimed to assess whether manipulating the eccentricity of visual flash stimuli altered the properties of the temporal binding window associated with the SIFI. Twenty participants were required to report whether they perceived one or two flashes that were concurrently presented with one or two beeps. Visual stimuli were presented at one of four different retinal eccentricities (2.5, 5, 7.5, or 10 degrees below fixation) and audiovisual stimuli were separated by one of eight stimulus-onset asynchronies. In keeping with previous findings, increasing stimulus-onset asynchrony between the auditory and visual stimuli led to a marked decrease in susceptibility to the illusion allowing us to estimate the width and amplitude of the temporal binding window. However, varying the eccentricity of the visual stimulus had no effect on either the width or the peak amplitude of the temporal binding window, with a similar pattern of results observed for both the "fission" and "fusion" variants of the illusion. Thus, spatial manipulations of the audiovisual stimuli used to elicit the SIFI appear to have a weaker effect on the integration of sensory signals than temporal manipulations, a finding which has implications for neuroanatomical models of multisensory integration.

Indexed as

IllusionsAcoustic StimulationAuditory PerceptionHumansPhotic StimulationSoundVisual PerceptionAudiovisual integrationEccentricityMultisensory integrationSound-induced flash illusionTemporal binding window

Identifiers

PMID35562629
PMCPMC9106326
OpenAlexW4280586214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.