Literature DB >> 17663007

The law of inverse effectiveness in neurons and behaviour: multisensory integration versus normal variability.

Nicholas P Holmes1.   

Abstract

Multisensory research is often interpreted according to three rules: the spatial rule, the temporal rule, and the law of inverse effectiveness. The spatial and temporal rules state that multisensory stimuli are integrated when their environmental sources occur at similar locations and times, respectively. The law of inverse effectiveness states that multisensory stimuli are integrated inversely proportional to the effectiveness of the best unisensory response. Neurally, these rules are grounded in anatomical and physiological mechanisms. By contrast, behavioural evidence often contradicts these rules, and direct links between multisensory neurons and multisensory behaviour remain unclear. This note discusses evidence supporting the law of inverse effectiveness, and reports a simulation of a behavioural experiment recently published in Neuropsychologia. The simulation reveals an alternative, statistical, explanation for the data. I conclude that the law of inverse effectiveness only sometimes applies, and that the choice of statistical analysis can have profound effects on whether the data abides the law.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17663007     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.05.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  23 in total

1.  Enhanced effectiveness in visuo-haptic object-selective brain regions with increasing stimulus salience.

Authors:  Sunah Kim; Thomas W James
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 2.  Audiotactile interactions in temporal perception.

Authors:  Valeria Occelli; Charles Spence; Massimiliano Zampini
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-06

3.  Vision perceptually restores auditory spectral dynamics in speech.

Authors:  John Plass; David Brang; Satoru Suzuki; Marcia Grabowecky
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Auditory enhancement of visual phosphene perception: the effect of temporal and spatial factors and of stimulus intensity.

Authors:  Nadia Bolognini; Irene Senna; Angelo Maravita; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Lotfi B Merabet
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2010-04-27       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  The modulatory effect of semantic familiarity on the audiovisual integration of face-name pairs.

Authors:  Yuanqing Li; Fangyi Wang; Biao Huang; Wanqun Yang; Tianyou Yu; Durk Talsma
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Multisensory integration of redundant trisensory stimulation.

Authors:  Carl Erick Hagmann; Natalie Russo
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Visual-somatosensory integration in aging: does stimulus location really matter?

Authors:  Jeannette R Mahoney; Cuiling Wang; Kristina Dumas; Roee Holtzer
Journal:  Vis Neurosci       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 3.241

Review 8.  Challenges in quantifying multisensory integration: alternative criteria, models, and inverse effectiveness.

Authors:  Barry E Stein; Terrence R Stanford; Ramnarayan Ramachandran; Thomas J Perrault; Benjamin A Rowland
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Evidence for multisensory integration in the elicitation of prior entry by bimodal cues.

Authors:  Doug J K Barrett; Katrin Krumbholz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-07-28       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Lip-reading aids word recognition most in moderate noise: a Bayesian explanation using high-dimensional feature space.

Authors:  Wei Ji Ma; Xiang Zhou; Lars A Ross; John J Foxe; Lucas C Parra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.