The relationship between multisensory associative learning and multisensory integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our perception of the world around us is inherently multisensory, and integrating sensory information from multiple modalities leads to more precise and efficient perception and behaviour. Determining which sensory information from different modalities should be perceptually bound is a key component of multisensory integration. To accomplish this feat, our sensory systems rely on both low-level stimulus features, as well as multisensory associations learned throughout development based on the statistics of our environment. The present study explored the relationship between multisensory associative learning and multisensory integration using encephalography (EEG) and behavioural measures. Sixty-one participants completed a three-phase study. First, participants were exposed to novel pairings audiovisual shape-tone pairings with frequent and infrequent stimulus pairings and complete a target detection task. EEG recordings of the mismatch negativity (MMN) and P3 were calculated as neural indices of multisensory associative learning. Next, the same learned stimulus pairs presented in audiovisual as well as unisensory auditory and visual modalities while both early (<120 ms) and late neural indices of multisensory integration were recorded. Finally, participants completed an analogous behavioural speeded-response task, with behavioural indices of multisensory gain calculated using the race model. Significant relationships were found in fronto-central and occipital areas between neural measures of associative learning and both early and late indices of multisensory integration in frontal and centro-parietal areas, respectively. Participants who showed stronger indices of associative learning also exhibited stronger indices of multisensory integration of the stimuli they learned to associate. Furthermore, a significant relationship was found between neural index of early multisensory integration and behavioural indices of multisensory gain. These results provide insight into the neural underpinnings of how higher-order processes such as associative learning guide multisensory integration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".