Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40631049›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Examining auditory modulations on detecting and pooling visual global motion.

Yi-Chuan Chen, Ang-Ke Ku, Pi-Chun Huang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Yi-Chuan ChenDepartment of Medicine, MacKay Medical College, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Ang-Ke KuDepartment of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Pi-Chun HuangDepartment of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Multisensory signals often interact to reduce perceptual uncertainty in the environment. However, the effects and mechanisms underlying audiovisual interactions in motion perception remain unclear. In this study, we adopted the method of constant stimuli and the equivalent noise paradigm to investigate whether and how auditory motion influences the perception of visual global motion. Methods: The visual stimuli consisted of dots moving either up-left or up-right, with motion directions sampled from a normal distribution at five levels of standard deviation. The auditory stimuli were white noise moving either laterally (leftward or rightward; Experiment 1) or diagonally (up-left or up-right; Experiment 2), forming a coarse congruent or incongruent directional relationship with the visual motion trajectories. Stationary and no-sound conditions were also included. The auditory signals were task-irrelevant and presented in spatial proximity to, but not fully overlapping with, the visual stimuli. Participants had to discriminate the direction of the visual global motion. Results and discussion: After accounting for or eliminating the bias induced by auditory motion at the decisional level, the thresholds of visual motion perception were found to be similar across the four auditory conditions. Further analysis using the equivalent noise model confirmed that auditory motion did not influence the detection or pooling of visual motion signals. Hence, we did not find evidence to support the notion that auditory motion modulates the sensory or perceptual processing of visual global motion, delineating a boundary condition for such crossmodal interactions.

Indexed as

audiovisual interactionsequivalent noise paradigminternal noisemultisensory processingresponse biassampling efficiency

Identifiers

PMID40631049
PMCPMC12234566

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.