Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review

By Jean H. M. Vroomen, Mirjam Keetels. 2010

452 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sensory Systems

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sensory Systems

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review (2017, background): “…events (Fujisaki et al., 2004; Vroomen et al., 2004), or after being trained to discriminate audiovisual synchrony (vs. asynchrony) with feedback (Powers et al., 2009), people’s perception of audiovisual simultaneity would change accordingly (see Vroomen and Keetels, 2010, for a review).”
Response Errors Explain the Failure of Independent-Channels Models of Perception of Temporal Order (2012, methodology): “Thus, we estimated parameters and measured the goodness of the fit using the same “currency” (Wichmann and Hill, 2001).”
Perception of intersensory synchrony in audiovisual speech: not that special. (2011, background): “…are also affected by whether the component signals are transient or slowly changing, and judging temporal order in audiovisual speech may be particularly difficult if it lacks abrupt changes like stop consonants that provide clear temporal markers (Conrey & Pisoni, 2003; Vroomen & Keetels, 2010).”
Interactions between the spatial and temporal stimulus factors that influence multisensory integration in human performance (2012, unknown): “Within the TBW, two 122 Exp Brain Res (2012) 219:121–137 sensory inputs are highly likely to be perceptually bound or fused into a single Gestalt percept (for review, see Vroomen and Keetels 2010).”
Multisensory temporal integration: Task and stimulus dependencies (2013, unknown): “depressions) and the magnitude or strength of the resultant interaction (Meredith et al. 1987; Stevenson et al. 2010; Vroomen and Keetels 2010).”
No effect of synesthetic congruency on temporal ventriloquism (2010, background): “The choice of the baseline is of importance, if only because synchronized sounds usually yield better JNDs than does a visual-only silent condition, possibly because synchronized sounds increase the reliability of the visual signal (Vroomen & Keetels, 2010).”
Intersensory binding across space and time: A tutorial review (2013, result): “Since then, many other studies have reported similar effects, extending these findings to other modalities, including tactile and motor–sensory timing and other domains like audiovisual speech (for an extensive review on perception of synchrony, see Vroomen & Keetels, 2010).”
The neural binding problem(s) (2013, background): “There is also some work that speculates on the role of binding, especially temporal synchrony, on the Subjective Unity of Perception, which will be discussed in third section (Engel and Singer 2001; von der Malsburg et al. 2009).”