ArticleJournal of vision2026
Did you see the sound? A Bayesian assessment on cross-modal perception in low vision.
Article in Journal of vision, 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
- Update of
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 sound-induced flash illusion (SIFI) across 24 visual-field locations, concurrently measuring baseline flash-detection accuracy. While both groups showed the expected auditory-driven increase in perceived flash numerosity, sighted controls were significantly more susceptible to the classic "double-flash" percept. While illusion strength approached marginal significance for eccentricity, it was more robustly predicted by local flash-detection accuracy, indicating that sound-induced percepts depend on the availability of a reliable visual signal. Exploratory Bayesian causal inference modeling revealed that when fitted across all locations, model performance was systematically weaker and more variable for low-vision observers. Crucially, however, restricting the analysis to high-visibility locations yielded robust model fits by the Bayesian information criterion and close agreement between observed and predicted response proportions. This suggests that, like sighted controls, low-vision participants continue to behave in a manner broadly consistent with Bayesian-optimal inference when visual information is sufficiently reliable. Together, these findings demonstrate that low vision does not globally amplify audiovisual interactions; rather, multisensory enhancements are constrained by local visual reliability, and Bayesian-like inference remains most evident when provided with a sufficient threshold of sensory input.
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.