ArticleScientific reports2026
Biological motion is perceived as faster with shorter auditory time intervals.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perceptual experience is continuously refined by crossmodal interactions in time. Prior research shows that auditory timing can modulate the perceived speed of visual motion with simple stimuli (e.g., flashes, clicks). It remains unknown whether such temporal interactions extend to complex, socially meaningful motion, where timing carries biological significance. Here, we investigated whether auditory timing affects the perceived speed of human locomotion depicted by point-light walkers (PLWs). Across experiments, participants compared the walking speed of sequentially presented, visually identical PLWs accompanied by footstep sounds differing only in inter-sound interval. Perceived walking speed systematically rescaled with auditory timing, revealing a robust crossmodal temporal influence. To assess whether this effect relied on specific temporal anchors, we manipulated either the onset or offset of footstep timing. The crossmodal influence was not locked to onset or offset cues, indicating that overall auditory time intervals shape visual motion perception rather than acting at discrete moments of audiovisual alignment. Moreover, the effect persisted across semantically congruent and incongruent sounds, suggesting that auditory timing primarily governs perceptual alignment across modalities. Together, these findings indicate that audiovisual interactions in time extend to naturalistic biological motion. Auditory timing provides a dominant low-level cue supporting perceptual coherence in dynamic multisensory environments.
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.