Evidence for a Generic Process Underlying Multisensory Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown repeatedly that the various sensory modalities interact with each other and that the integration of incongruent percepts across two modalities, such as vision and audition, can lead to illusions.Different individual cognitive features (i.e., attention, linguistic experience, etc.) have been shown to modulate the level of multisensory integration.As such, it may be hypothesized that an intra-individual generic process underlies parts of illusory perception, irrespective of illusory material.One simple way to address this issue is to assess whether observers experience multisensory integration to a similar degree when the illusory material varies with respect to its sensory features.Here, performance on two distinct audio-visual illusions (McGurk effect, illusory flash effect) was tested in a group of adult observers.Results show a positive within-subject correlation between both illusions indirectly supporting the existence of a generic process for multisensory integration that could include individual differences in attention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".