ArticleJournal of vision2025
Continuous tracking of audiovisual motion.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multisensory processing is important for studying and understanding typical and atypical development; however, traditional paradigms involve numerous conditions and trials, making sessions long and tedious. A technique referred to as "continuous-tracking" has been introduced which can assess perceptual thresholds in a shorter time. We tested this technique in an audiovisual context by asking participants to track 1-minute audiovisual stimuli moving in a random walk. The stimuli could be visual, auditory, or audiovisual. In the last case, we had a congruent and incongruent condition with a spatiotemporal shift between the two stimuli, so either vision or audition led the walk by a given time. We further modulated the reliability of the visual stimulus to shift the weight toward the audio. We found a straightforward visual dominance regarding motion perception in audiovisual contexts. Regardless of its state, visual information interferes with auditory perception. Moreover, the continuous tracking yielded a new measurement of motion perception, the lag, giving information on the delay between visual and auditory information processing. Indeed, we observed that the tracking of auditory motion lagged relative to visual motion.
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.