The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Individual Differences in Alpha Frequency Drive Crossmodal Illusory Perception
Open accessAbstract
Perception routinely integrates inputs from different senses. Stimulus temporal proximity critically determines whether or not these inputs are bound together. Despite the temporal window of integration being a widely accepted notion, its neurophysiological substrate remains unclear. Many types of common audio-visual interactions occur within a time window of ∼100 ms. For example, in the sound-induced double-flash illusion, when two beeps are presented within ∼100 ms together with one flash, a second illusory flash is often perceived. Due to their intrinsic rhythmic nature, brain oscillations are one candidate mechanism for gating the temporal window of integration. Interestingly, occipital alpha band oscillations cycle on average every ∼100 ms, with peak frequencies ranging between 8 and 14 Hz (i.e., 120-60 ms cycle). Moreover, presenting a brief tone can phase-reset such oscillations in visual cortex. Based on these observations, we hypothesized that the duration of each alpha cycle might provide the temporal unit to bind audio-visual events. Here, we first recorded EEG while participants performed the sound-induced double-flash illusion task and found positive correlation between individual alpha frequency (IAF) peak and the size of the temporal window of the illusion. Participants then performed the same task while receiving occipital transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), to modulate oscillatory activity either at their IAF or at off-peak alpha frequencies (IAF±2 Hz). Compared to IAF tACS, IAF-2 Hz and IAF+2 Hz tACS, respectively, enlarged and shrunk the temporal window of illusion, suggesting that alpha oscillations might represent the temporal unit of visual processing that cyclically gates perception and the neurophysiological substrate promoting audio-visual interactions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools
Woods, A. J., Antal, A., Bikson, M., Boggio, P. S., Brunoni, A. R., Celnik, P., Cohen, L. G., Fregni, F., Herrmann, C. S., Kappenman, E. S., et al. (2016) · Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.012 · Cited by 1,439
A New Unifying Account of the Roles of Neuronal Entrainment
Lakatos, P., Gross, J., & Thut, G. (2019) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.075 · Cited by 508
The Speed of Alpha-Band Oscillations Predicts the Temporal Resolution of Visual Perception
Samaha, J., & Postle, B. R. (2015) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.10.007 · Cited by 465
Transcranial Alternating Current and Random Noise Stimulation: Possible Mechanisms
Antal, A., & Herrmann, C. S. (2016) · Neural Plasticity · doi:10.1155/2016/3616807 · Cited by 357
The multisensory function of the human primary visual cortex
Murray, M. M., Thelen, A., Thut, G., Romei, V., Martuzzi, R., & Matusz, P. J. (2016) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.011 · Cited by 219
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cecere, R., Rees, G., & Romei, V.
- Venue
- Current Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 231-235
- ISSN
- 0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2140858956
- Cited by
- 413
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Individual Differences in Alpha Frequency Drive Crossmodal Illusory Perception. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.034
- The paper
- Cecere, R., Rees, G., & Romei, V. (2015). Individual Differences in Alpha Frequency Drive Crossmodal Illusory Perception. Current Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.034
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.