Cited by 314Multisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Evaluating the Operations Underlying Multisensory Integration in the Cat Superior Colliculus

Open access
Stanford, Terrence R., Quessy, Stephan, Stein, Barry E.·2005·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

It is well established that superior colliculus (SC) multisensory neurons integrate cues from different senses; however, the mechanisms responsible for producing multisensory responses are poorly understood. Previous studies have shown that spatially congruent cues from different modalities (e.g., auditory and visual) yield enhanced responses and that the greatest relative enhancements occur for combinations of the least effective modality-specific stimuli. Although these phenomena are well documented, little is known about the mechanisms that underlie them, because no study has systematically examined the operation that multisensory neurons perform on their modality-specific inputs. The goal of this study was to evaluate the computations that multisensory neurons perform in combining the influences of stimuli from two modalities. The extracellular activities of single neurons in the SC of the cat were recorded in response to visual, auditory, and bimodal visual-auditory stimulation. Each neuron was tested across a range of stimulus intensities and multisensory responses evaluated against the null hypothesis of simple summation of unisensory influences. We found that the multisensory response could be superadditive, additive, or subadditive but that the computation was strongly dictated by the efficacies of the modality-specific stimulus components. Superadditivity was most common within a restricted range of near-threshold stimulus efficacies, whereas for the majority of stimuli, response magnitudes were consistent with the linear summation of modality-specific influences. In addition to providing a constraint for developing models of multisensory integration, the relationship between response mode and stimulus efficacy emphasizes the importance of considering stimulus parameters when inducing or interpreting multisensory phenomena.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.5095-04.2005

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • Deviations from optimal integration have been observed in tasks with time constraints or novel stimuli, suggesting the Bayesian fit may reflect task-specific tuning rather than a general cognitive strategy.

    “Moreover, deviations from optimal integration have been observed in tasks with time constraints or novel stimuli (Arnold et al. 2019; Stanford et al. 2005), suggesting that the Bayesian fit may reflect task-specific tuning rather than a general cognitive strategy.”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Stanford et al. 2005

    The “Effect of stimulus timing” section reports that changing stimulus onset asynchrony altered the proportions of additive, superadditive, and subadditive responses in cat superior-colliculus neurons. It does not study time-constrained tasks or novel stimuli, or assess deviations from Bayesian-optimal integration; the suggestion about a task-specific cognitive strategy is not supported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stanford, T. R., Quessy, S., & Stein, B. E.
Affiliations
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2005-07-13
Volume
25
Issue
28
Pages
6499-6508
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2038735682
Cited by
314
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
23.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (NS36916)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 36916, NS22543, R01NS036916, R01NS022543)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
multisensory integration, superior colliculus, cats, superadditivity, linear summation, single-unit recording, multisensory neurons, audiovisual integration
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Action Potentials, Animals, Auditory Perception, Brain Mapping, Cats, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Sensation, Superior Colliculi, 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