Cited by 269Multisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory InteractionsNeuroscience and Music Perception

Individual differences in the multisensory temporal binding window predict susceptibility to audiovisual illusions

Open access
Stevenson, Ryan A., Zemtsov, Raquel K., Wallace, Mark T.·2012·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

Human multisensory systems are known to bind inputs from the different sensory modalities into a unified percept, a process that leads to measurable behavioral benefits. This integrative process can be observed through multisensory illusions, including the McGurk effect and the sound-induced flash illusion, both of which demonstrate the ability of one sensory modality to modulate perception in a second modality. Such multisensory integration is highly dependent upon the temporal relationship of the different sensory inputs, with perceptual binding occurring within a limited range of asynchronies known as the temporal binding window (TBW). Previous studies have shown that this window is highly variable across individuals, but it is unclear how these variations in the TBW relate to an individual's ability to integrate multisensory cues. Here we provide evidence linking individual differences in multisensory temporal processes to differences in the individual's audiovisual integration of illusory stimuli. Our data provide strong evidence that the temporal processing of multiple sensory signals and the merging of multiple signals into a single, unified perception, are highly related. Specifically, the width of right side of an individuals' TBW, where the auditory stimulus follows the visual, is significantly correlated with the strength of illusory percepts, as indexed via both an increase in the strength of binding synchronous sensory signals and in an improvement in correctly dissociating asynchronous signals. These findings are discussed in terms of their possible neurobiological basis, relevance to the development of sensory integration, and possible importance for clinical conditions in which there is growing evidence that multisensory integration is compromised.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0027339

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The temporal binding hypothesis is based on the premise that sensory stimuli that occur in close temporal proximity are more likely to be integrated and perceived as emanating from the same source; timing information is crucial to binding and integrating associated stimuli.

    “It is based on the premise that sensory stimuli that occur in close temporal proximity are more likely to be integrated and perceived as emanating from the same source; thus, timing information is crucial to binding and integrating associated stimuli (Shams et al., 2000, McGurk and Macdonald, 1976, Stevenson et al., 2012).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Stevenson RA Zemtsov RK Wallace MT (under review). Consistency in individual’s multisensory temporal binding windows across task and stimulus complexity Experimental Brain Research
  2. Wallace MH Murray MM Frontiers in the neural basis of multisensory processes 2011 London, UK Taylor & Francis

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevenson, R. A., Zemtsov, R. K., & Wallace, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
2012-12
Volume
38
Issue
6
Pages
1517-1529
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2004852945
Cited by
269
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
18.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (1R34 DC010927, 1F32 DC011993)
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 › Neuroscience and Music Perception
Keywords
multisensory integration, temporal binding window, McGurk effect, sound-induced flash illusion, individual differences, perceptual binding, sensory integration
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Auditory Perception, Cues, Female, Humans, Illusions, Individuality, Male, Nerve Net, Photic Stimulation, Time Factors, Visual Perception

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