Cited by 310Multisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory InteractionsVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Vision Modulates Somatosensory Cortical Processing

Open access
Taylor-Clarke, Marisa, Kennett, Steffan, Haggard, Patrick·2002·Current Biology

Abstract

Over 150 years ago, E.H. Weber declared that experience showed that tactile acuity was not affected by viewing the stimulated body part. However, more recent investigations suggest that cross-modal links do exist between the senses. Viewing the stimulated body site improves performance on tactile discrimination and detection tasks and enhances tactile acuity. Here, we show that vision modulates somatosensory cortex activity, as measured by somatosensory event-related potentials (ERPs). This modulation is greatest when tactile stimulation is task relevant. Visual modulation is not present in the P50 component reflecting the primary afferent input to the cortex but appears in the subsequent N80 component, which has also been localized to SI, the primary somatosensory cortex. Furthermore, we replicate previous findings that noninformative vision improves spatial acuity. These results are consistent with a hypothesis that vision modulates cortical processing of tactile stimuli via back projections from multimodal cortical areas. Several neurophysiological studies suggest that primary and secondary somatosensory cortex (SI and SII, respectively) activity can be modulated by spatial and tactile attention and by visual cues. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of direct modulation of somatosensory cortex activity by a noninformative view of the stimulated body site with concomitant enhancement of tactile acuity in normal subjects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00681-9

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Taylor-Clarke, M., Kennett, S., & Haggard, P.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Taylor-Clarke, Marisa
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-02
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
233-236
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2065691226
Cited by
309
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
16.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
visual-tactile interaction, cross-modal interaction, somatosensory cortex, tactile acuity, somatosensory event-related potentials, P50, primary somatosensory cortex, secondary somatosensory cortex, spatial acuity, visual cues, tactile discrimination
MeSH terms
Adult, Cues, Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory, Humans, Middle Aged, Photic Stimulation, Physical Stimulation, Somatosensory Cortex, Touch, Vision, Ocular, Feedback, Physiological

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