ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Cross-modal congruency modulates evidence accumulation, not decision thresholds.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Audiovisual cross-modal correspondences (CMCs) refer to the brain's inherent ability to subconsciously connect auditory and visual information. These correspondences reveal essential aspects of multisensory perception and influence behavioral performance, enhancing reaction times and accuracy. However, the impact of different types of CMCs-arising from statistical co-occurrences or shaped by semantic associations-on information processing and decision-making remains underexplored. This study utilizes the Implicit Association Test, where unisensory stimuli are sequentially presented and linked via CMCs within an experimental block by the specific response instructions (either congruent or incongruent). Behavioral data are integrated with EEG measurements through neurally informed drift-diffusion modeling to examine how neural activity across both auditory and visual trials is modulated by CMCs. Our findings reveal distinct neural components that differentiate between congruent and incongruent stimuli regardless of modality, offering new insights into the role of congruency in shaping multisensory perceptual decision-making. Two key neural stages were identified: an Early component enhancing sensory encoding in congruent trials and a Late component affecting evidence accumulation, particularly in incongruent trials. These results suggest that cross-modal congruency primarily influences the processing and accumulation of sensory information rather than altering decision thresholds.
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.