ArticleJournal of vision2024
Integration of auditory and visual cues in spatial navigation under normal and impaired viewing conditions.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wayfinding with Impaired Vision: Preferences for Cues, Strategies, and Aids (Part I-Perspectives from Visually Impaired Individuals).Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Directed attention influences optimality of top-down and bottom-up multi-modal perceptual integration.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Integration of auditory and visual cues in spatial navigation under normal and impaired viewing conditions.Journal of vision · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Auditory landmarks can contribute to spatial updating during navigation with vision. Whereas large inter-individual differences have been identified in how navigators combine auditory and visual landmarks, it is still unclear under what circumstances audition is used. Further, whether or not individuals optimally combine auditory cues with visual cues to decrease the amount of perceptual uncertainty, or variability, has not been well-documented. Here, we test audiovisual integration during spatial updating in a virtual navigation task. In Experiment 1, 24 individuals with normal sensory acuity completed a triangular homing task with either visual landmarks, auditory landmarks, or both. In addition, participants experienced a fourth condition with a covert spatial conflict where auditory landmarks were rotated relative to visual landmarks. Participants generally relied more on visual landmarks than auditory landmarks and were no more accurate with multisensory cues than with vision alone. In Experiment 2, a new group of 24 individuals completed the same task, but with simulated low vision in the form of a blur filter to increase visual uncertainty. Again, participants relied more on visual landmarks than auditory ones and no multisensory benefit occurred. Participants navigating with blur did not rely more on their hearing compared with the group that navigated with normal vision. These results support previous research showing that one sensory modality at a time may be sufficient for spatial updating, even under impaired viewing conditions. Future research could investigate task- and participant-specific factors that lead to different strategies of multisensory cue combination with auditory and visual cues.
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.