Hearing cheats touch, but less in congenitally blind than in sighted individuals
Abstract
The principles of cross-modal integration were investigated with an auditory-tactile illusion in sighted and congenitally blind adults. Participants had to judge the number of rapidly presented tactile stimuli, which were presented together with task-irrelevant sounds. When one tactile stimulus was accompanied by more than one tone, participants reported perceiving more than a single touch. This illusion was more pronounced in sighted than congenitally blind participants. Given that the congenitally blind were more precise in judging the number of tactile stimuli in a control condition without tones, the present data are in accordance with a modality-appropriateness account suggesting that interference by a task-irrelevant modality is reduced if processing accuracy of the task-relevant modality is high.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Information from one sensory modality can influence or alter perception of stimuli in another modality.
“There are various examples of how information from one modality influences, or even alters, our perception of stimuli in another modality (McGurk & McDonald, 1976; Shams, Kamitani, & Shimojo, 2000; Hötting & Röder, 2004)”
From Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1 (2016) · cites this paper as Hötting & Röder, 2004
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 29 · Cited by 136
- Authors
- Hötting, K., & Röder, B.
- Affiliations
- Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Hötting, Kirsten
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 60-64
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2156624018
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 9.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- 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
- cross-modal integration, congenital blindness, tactile perception, task-irrelevant sounds, multisensory perception
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blindness, Female, Hearing, Humans, Male, Touch
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
