ArticleJournal of vision2025
Visual information shows dominance in determining the magnitude of intentional binding for audiovisual outcomes.
Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intentional binding (IB) refers to the compression of subjective timing between a voluntary action and its outcome. In this study, we investigate the IB of a multimodal (audiovisual) outcome. We used a modified Libet clock while depicting a dynamic physical event (collision). Experiment 1 examined whether IB for the unimodal (auditory) event could be generalized to the multimodal (audiovisual) event, compared their magnitudes, and assessed whether the level of integration between modalities could affect IB. Planned contrasts (n = 42) showed significant IB effects for all types of events; the magnitude of IB was significantly weaker in both audiovisual integrated and audiovisual irrelevant conditions compared with auditory, with no difference between the integrated and irrelevant conditions. Experiment 2 separated the components of the audiovisual event to test the appropriate model describing the magnitude of IB in multimodal contexts. Planned contrasts (n = 42) showed the magnitude of IB was significantly weaker in both the audiovisual and visual conditions compared with the auditory condition, with no difference between the audiovisual and visual conditions. Additional Bayesian analysis provided moderate evidence supporting the equivalence between the two conditions. In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the IB phenomenon can be generalized to multimodal (audiovisual) sensory outcomes, and visual information shows dominance in determining the magnitude of IB for audiovisual events.
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.