The audio-visual fusion illusion is not a function of visual up-regulation alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief auditory events can influence the perception of visual events (Shams et al. 2000). Also, humans are less susceptible to the fusion illusion (i.e., 2 flashes with 1 beep perceived as 1 flash) when stimuli are presented at high limb velocity during a reaching movement (Tremblay & Nguyen, 2010). In this study, we presented unimodal visual events to test the hypothesis that decreased susceptibility to an audio-visual illusion arises from absolute visual information processing up-regulation (cf. relative visual-to-auditory processing). Participants performed reaches towards a visual target (30 cm amplitude: 290-350 ms). A secondary visual stimulus presented in the lower visual field was constituted of one or two flashes (20 ms duration, 60 ms SOA) and presented at 0, 100, 200, 300, 400 or 500 ms relative to movement onset or at rest (i.e., control trials). Participants were asked to report whether they perceived one or two flashes after each trial. An ANOVA contrasted the perceived flashes using a 7 condition (control, 0-500 ms) by 2 flash (1-2) design. Post-hoc analyses of the condition by flash interaction showed that participants perceived: 1) more flashes during the movement (i.e., in all but the 300 ms condition) than at rest in the 1-flash trials and 2) fewer flashes during movement (i.e., at 200 and 300 ms only) than at rest in the 2-flash trials. Such decreased ability to accurately report the number of flashes was also observed across experimental conditions. These results represent evidence against the absolute visual up-regulation hypothesis. Acknowledgments: Canada Foundation for Innovation; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".