Effects of Visual, Auditory, and Combined Cues on Human Movement and Brain Regions Involved in Perception Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sensory stimuli such as visual and auditory cues are important to perceive our surroundings accurately. The effects of visual, auditory, or combined cues to modulate human movements such as walking are well-reported in the neuroscience literature. To date, no comprehensive report has summarized these findings. Objective: The primary aim of this narrative review is to synthesize the literature on the interaction of visual, auditory, and combined cues of movement, as well as to present specific brain regions involved in perception-action. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature of published scientific work was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. Only English language articles that reported on visual, auditory, or combined cues and human movements were selected. Literature that included biofeedback was excluded. Results: The literature suggests that visual and auditory cues have the potential to induce deviation in human movements. The posterior superior temporal sulcus and mirror neuron networks are shown to be critical in multimodal sensory integration. Conclusion: This review presents some important theoretical models and outlines the brain regions involved in sensorimotor synchronization in human movement. Individual visual, auditory, or combined cues may have the potential to develop therapeutic interventions in the rehabilitation of movement disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".