ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2026
Decoding self-motion: insights into visual-vestibular causal inference.
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-motion perception relies on the integration of visual optic flow and vestibular signals, yet these cues are often noisy, unreliable, or mutually inconsistent. A central challenge is therefore not only how to integrate them, but also whether they should be integrated at all. Bayesian causal inference provides a framework for this problem by proposing that the brain infers whether visual and vestibular cues arise from a common cause and adjusts their integration accordingly. Behavioral findings, including disparity-dependent perceptual biases, reliability-dependent cue reweighting, and experience-dependent recalibration, are compatible with this framework, but are not diagnostic of causal inference in isolation and may also arise from alternative integration or decision mechanisms. At the neural level, studies in humans and nonhuman primates have identified a distributed self-motion network involving MSTd, VIP, VPS/PIVC, and frontal and parietal association areas. However, current evidence mainly concerns multisensory convergence, cue weighting, and conflict sensitivity rather than a direct neural representation of causal structure. Here, we review visual-vestibular causal inference from three linked perspectives: the computational framework and its domain-specific assumptions, the strength and limitations of the behavioral model evidence, and the candidate neural substrates and circuit mechanisms. We conclude by highlighting major open questions and future directions for understanding causal inference during naturalistic self-motion.
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.