Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39969485›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2025

A model of audio-visual motion integration during active self-movement.

Maria Gallagher, Joshua D Haynes, John F Culling, Tom C A Freeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  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

4 authors.

Maria GallagherSchool of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Joshua D HaynesSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
John F CullingSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Tom C A FreemanSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite good evidence for optimal audio-visual integration in stationary observers, few studies have considered the impact of self-movement on this process. When the head and/or eyes move, the integration of vision and hearing is complicated, as the sensory measurements begin in different coordinate frames. To successfully integrate these signals, they must first be transformed into the same coordinate frame. We propose that audio and visual motion cues are separately transformed using self-movement signals, before being integrated as body-centered cues to audio-visual motion. We tested this hypothesis using a psychophysical audio-visual integration task in which participants made left/right judgments of audio, visual, or audio-visual targets during self-generated yaw head rotations. Estimates of precision and bias from the audio and visual conditions were used to predict performance in the audio-visual conditions. We found that audio-visual performance was predicted well by models that suggested the transformation of cues into common coordinates but could not be explained by a model that did not rely on coordinate transformation before integration. We also found that precision specifically was better predicted by a model that accounted for shared noise arising from signals encoding head movement. Taken together, our findings suggest that motion perception in active observers is based on the integration of partially correlated body-centered signals.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionHead MovementsMotion PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultCuesFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationPsychophysicsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39969485
PMCPMC11841688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.