Performing a task jointly enhances the sound-induced flash illusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our different senses are stimulated continuously. Through multisensory integration, different sensory inputs may or may not be combined into a unitary percept. Simultaneous with this stimulation, people are frequently engaged in social interactions, but how multisensory integration and social processing combine is largely unknown. The present study investigated if, and how, the multisensory sound-induced flash illusion is affected by a social manipulation. In the sound-induced flash illusion, a participant typically receives one visual flash and two auditory beeps and she/he is required to indicate the number of flashes that were perceived. Often, the auditory beeps alter the perception of the flashes such that a participant tends to perceive two flashes instead of one flash. We tested whether performing a flash counting task with a partner (confederate), who was required to indicate the number of presented beeps, would modulate this illusion. We found that the sound-induced flash illusion was perceived significantly more often when the flash counting task was performed with the confederate compared to performing it alone. Yet, we no longer find this effect if visual access between the two individuals is prevented. These findings, combined with previous results, suggest that performing a multisensory task jointly - in this case an audiovisual task - lowers the extent to which an individual attends to visual information - which in turn affects the multisensory integration process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".