ReviewPatterns (New York, N.Y.)2025
Emulating sensation by bridging neuromorphic computing and multisensory integration.
Review in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 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
Multisensory perception produces vast amounts of data requiring efficient processing. This paper focuses on the multisensory example of touch in biological and artificial systems. We integrate philosophical theories of multisensory perception with neuromorphic hardware and demonstrate how classical sensory integration concepts can enhance artificial sensory systems. This approach bridges theoretical neuroscience and computational applications using philosophical tools. We contrast human touch perception, involving feature binding, with artificial perception in neuromorphic computing, where such integration is absent. Two theoretical frameworks are of interest, feature binding and modalities as conventional kinds, in evaluating their relevance to artificial touch. Our findings suggest that a hardware-tailored adaptation of the conventional modalities approach accurately reflects artificial touch perception. Unlike human perception, artificial systems process sensory data separately, lacking binding mechanisms. We explore the implications of these differences, highlighting challenges in replicating human sensory experiences and the role of subjective experience in perception.
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.