ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Evidence against independence of peripheral latencies and central threshold in temporal-order perception.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. 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
Independent-channels models of temporal-order and simultaneity perception assume that a central (amodal) timing mechanism compares the arrival times of incoming sensory signals independently of peripheral (modal) events. This implies that peripheral latencies and central threshold are additive. The present study tested whether the central threshold is invariant to intramodal versus intermodal stimulation (Experiment 1) and strong versus weak intermodal stimulation (Experiment 2). The central threshold was isolated via the distance between the two psychometric functions in the ternary-response task, which does not depend on peripheral latencies under the additivity assumption. In Experiment 1, the central threshold was estimated to be significantly higher for intermodal stimuli (light and sound) than for intramodal stimuli (two lights) for all subjects across the entire practice curve (20 one-hour sessions) and also at the group level. In Experiment 2, the estimates of the central threshold were significantly higher for weak intermodal stimuli (dim light and soft sound) than for strong ones (bright light and loud sound) for most subjects and at the group level. These violations of threshold invariance in both experiments provide converging evidence against the independence of peripheral latencies and central threshold, and thus challenge the dominant class of theoretical models of temporal-order and simultaneity 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.