ArticleComputational brain & behavior2025
Redundancy Gains in Absolute Judgments of Loudness and Brightness.
Article in Computational brain & behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A sequential model of two-choice intensity identification.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
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
People's ability to discern the physical intensity level of visual and auditory events presented at the same time is investigated in a bimodal identification paradigm with stimulus redundancy. Two approaches to modeling redundancy gains in choice reaction time (RT) and response probability in this paradigm are advanced: first, a separate activation model where two sequential likelihood ratio tests (SLRTs) for exponentially distributed neural interarrival times operate on parallel channels, each capable to evoke a response, and second, a coactive model where the outputs of two SLRTs are superposed in a single processing channel to trigger a response. Although both models predict plausible error rates, the separate activation model accounts better for observed benchmarks in choice RT. However, a violation of the race model inequality at the smallest quantile for loud and soft bimodal stimuli hints that the separate activation model might nonetheless be untenable. These findings challenge both parallel and coactive processing accounts of performance in intensity identification tasks with redundant auditory-visual stimuli.
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.