ArticleScientific reports2025
Sensory reliability takes priority over the central tendency effect in temporal and spatial estimation.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serial dependence does not build up to central tendency bias in orientation judgments.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Echoes of the mind's eye: Reciprocal crossmodal interaction between auditory and visual processing.iScience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.