ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
Did you see the sound? A Bayesian Perspective on Crossmodal Perception in Low Vision.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multisensory integration is often assumed to increase when visual input is degraded, yet it remains unclear whether low vision enhances susceptibility to cross-modal illusions or whether such effects depend on local variations in visual reliability. We tested low vision and sighted control participants on the Double Flash Illusion across 24 visual-field locations while separately measuring flash-detection accuracy. Both groups showed the expected auditory-driven increase in perceived flash numerosity, but only sighted controls reliably experienced the classic "double-flash" percept. Illusion strength did not vary with eccentricity; instead, it was strongly predicted by local flash detection accuracy, indicating that sound-induced percepts depend on the availability of a reliable visual signal. Bayesian Causal Inference modeling revealed substantially weaker and more variable fits for low vision observers, with poorer fits associated with reduced visual sensitivity. Although model parameters did not differ significantly between groups, the similarity in estimated visual noise likely reflects model limitations rather than true equivalence in sensory precision. Together, these findings show that low vision does not globally amplify audiovisual interactions; rather, auditory enhancement depends on local visual reliability, and degraded vision leads to weaker alignment with Bayesian-optimal predictions.
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.