Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41198729›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Sensory reliability takes priority over the central tendency effect in temporal and spatial estimation.

Alessia Tonelli, Cameron K Phan, David Alais

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Alessia TonelliSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. alessia.tonelli@iit.it.
Cameron K PhanSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
David AlaisSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions 101064748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perception is influenced by contextual factors that help resolve sensory uncertainty. A well-known phenomenon, the central tendency effect, describes how perceptual estimates gravitate toward the mean of a distribution of stimuli, particularly when sensory input is unreliable. However, in multisensory contexts, it remains unclear whether this effect follows a generalized priority across modalities or might be influenced by task-relevant sensory dominance. We studied spatial and temporal estimation in the auditory and visual modalities, testing whether perceptual estimates are driven by a supra-modal prior or by modality reliability specific to the task, and applied Bayesian modeling to explain the results. Participants first performed baseline sessions using only one modality and then a third session in which the modalities were interleaved. In the interleaved session, we found that the changes in auditory and visual estimates were not towards a supra-modal (generalized) prior, but estimates related to the dominant modality (vision for space, audition for time) were stable, while estimates of the other sensory modality (audition for space, vision for time) were pulled towards the dominant modality's prior. Bayesian modeling also confirmed that the best-fitting models were those in which priors were modality-specific rather than supra-modal. These results highlight that perceptual estimation favors sensory reliability over a general tendency to regress toward the mean, providing insights into how the brain integrates contextual information across modalities.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionSpace PerceptionTime PerceptionVisual PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAuditory perceptionCentral tendencySpatial perceptionTime perceptionVisual perception

Identifiers

PMID41198729
PMCPMC12592404

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.