Cited by 78Multisensory perception and integrationPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Multisensory constraints on awareness

Open access
Deroy, Ophelia, Chen, Yi-Chuan, Spence, Charles·2014·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Given that multiple senses are often stimulated at the same time, perceptual awareness is most likely to take place in multisensory situations. However, theories of awareness are based on studies and models established for a single sense (mostly vision). Here, we consider the methodological and theoretical challenges raised by taking a multisensory perspective on perceptual awareness. First, we consider how well tasks designed to study unisensory awareness perform when used in multisensory settings, stressing that studies using binocular rivalry, bistable figure perception, continuous flash suppression, the attentional blink, repetition blindness and backward masking can demonstrate multisensory influences on unisensory awareness, but fall short of tackling multisensory awareness directly. Studies interested in the latter phenomenon rely on a method of subjective contrast and can, at best, delineate conditions under which individuals report experiencing a multisensory object or two unisensory objects. As there is not a perfect match between these conditions and those in which multisensory integration and binding occur, the link between awareness and binding advocated for visual information processing needs to be revised for multisensory cases. These challenges point at the need to question the very idea of multisensory awareness.

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 · 10.1098/rstb.2013.0207

Cites

123 of 124 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?

  • A holistic picture of perceptual representation cannot be constructed without understanding multisensory interactions.

    “The literature on multimodal interactions (see e.g. Deroy, Chen & Spence, 2014; Driver & Spence, 2000; Koelewijn, Bronkhorst & Theeuwes, 2010; Kristjánsson, Thorvaldsson, & Kristjánsson, 2014; Stein & Meredith, 1993) makes clear that a holistic picture of perceptual representation cannot be constructed without understanding multisensory interactions.”

    From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Deroy, Chen & Spence, 2014

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: 6

  1. [1]Marcel AJ. 2003. Introspective report. J. Conscious. Stud. 10, 167–186. [Google Scholar]
  2. [37]Alais D, Blake R. (eds). 2005. Binocular rivalry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. [92]Navarra J. 2003. Visual speech interference in an auditory shadowing task: the dubbed movie effect. In Proc. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain (ed. Solé MJ.), pp. 1–4. Barcelona, Spain: ICPhS Organizing Committee. [Google Scholar]
  4. [105]Deroy O. In press. Multisensory integration and the many unities of consciousness. In Multisensory integration and the unity of consciousness (eds Bennett D, Hill C.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. [109]Spence C, Smith B, Auvray M. In press. Confusing tastes and flavours. In Perception and its modalities (eds Matthen M, Biggs S, Stokes D.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. [112]Wagemans J. (ed.) In press. The Oxford handbook of perceptual organization. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deroy, O., Chen, Y.-C., & Spence, C.
Affiliations
  • University of London (GB)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Deroy, Ophelia
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2014-05-05
Volume
369
Issue
1641
Pages
20130207
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2171629471
Cited by
78
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/L007053/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
perceptual awareness, multisensory integration, multisensory binding, binocular rivalry, continuous flash suppression, attentional blink, repetition blindness, backward masking, visual processing
MeSH terms
Awareness, Consciousness, Humans, Models, Psychological, Perception, Perceptual Masking, Vision Disparity, Attentional Blink

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