The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Enhancement of Perceived Visual Intensity by Auditory Stimuli: A Psychophysical Analysis
Abstract
Judgments of the intensity of a stimulus are dependent on the level of central nervous system activity it generates. Generally, it is assumed that such judgments are based on activity along modality-specific pathways. Thus, visual intensity judgments would be based on unimodal visual activity. However, many neurons do not fit neatly within modality-specific categories, but can be influenced by more than one sensory modality. Often the “multisensory” effect is quite pronounced. If these multisensory neurons participate in such fundamental functions as perceived intensity, the presence of a nonvisual (i.e., auditory) cue may have a significant effect on the perceived intensity of a visual cue. The results of the present study were consistent with such a hypothesis. A brief, broad-band auditory stimulus was found to significantly enhance the perceived intensity of an LED. The effect was most pronounced at the lowest visual intensities, and was evident regardless of the location of the auditory cue. However, it was present only at the location of visual fixation. Yet, despite the significant influence of the auditory cue, and its differential effect at different visual intensities, a power function that maintains the proportionality among perceived visual intensities was retained.
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
Cites
Hearing lips and seeing voices
MCGURK, H., & MACDONALD, J. (1976) · Nature · doi:10.1038/264746a0 · Cited by 6,183
The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain
Price, D. D., McGrath, P. A., Rafii, A., & Buckingham, B. (1983) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90126-4 · Cited by 3,921
Self-citationVisual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise
Sumby, W. H., & Pollack, I. (1954) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1907309 · Cited by 2,583
Price, D. D., Bush, F. M., Long, S., & Harkins, S. W. (1994) · Pain · doi:10.1016/0304-3959(94)90097-3 · Cited by 1,174
Self-citation
Cited by
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35048669 · Cited by 1,262
Giard, M. H., & Peronnet, F. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/089892999563544 · Cited by 1,072
Visual illusion induced by sound
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2002) · Cognitive Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0926-6410(02)00069-1 · Cited by 657
Enhanced multisensory integration in older adults
Laurienti, P. J., Burdette, J. H., Maldjian, J. A., & Wallace, M. T. (2006) · Neurobiology of Aging · doi:10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2005.05.024 · Cited by 451
Enhancement of visual perception by crossmodal visuo-auditory interaction
Frassinetti, F., Bolognini, N., & Làdavas, E. (2002) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-002-1262-y · Cited by 444
Metadata
- Authors
- Stein, B. E., London, N., Wilkinson, L. K., & Price, D. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1996-11-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 497-506
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2153423278
- Cited by
- 404
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 7.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Enhancement of Perceived Visual Intensity by Auditory Stimuli: A Psychophysical Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/jocn.1996.8.6.497
- The paper
- Stein, B. E., London, N., Wilkinson, L. K., & Price, D. D. (1996). Enhancement of Perceived Visual Intensity by Auditory Stimuli: A Psychophysical Analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1996.8.6.497
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.