Multisensory integration: flexible use of general operations

By Nienke M. van Atteveldt, Micah M. Murray, Gregor Thut, Charles E. Schroeder. 2014

264 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Research into the anatomical substrates and “principles” for integrating inputs from separate sensory surfaces has yielded divergent findings. This suggests that multisensory integration is flexible and context-dependent, and underlines the need for dynamically adaptive neuronal integration mechanisms. We propose that flexible multisensory integration can be explained by a combination of canonical, population-level integrative operations, such as oscillatory phase-resetting and divisive normalization. These canonical operations subsume multisensory integration into a fundamental set of principles as to how the brain integrates all sorts of information, and they are being used proactively and adaptively. We illustrate this proposition by unifying recent findings from different research themes such as timing, behavioral goal and experience-related differences in integration.

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): “Specifically, multisensory stimuli that are presented close in time or space may have been encoded and/or integrated during the feed-forward processing (i.e., in a bottom–up fashion, see Stein and Meredith, 1993; Noesselt et al., 2010; van Atteveldt et al., 2014).”
Single-trial multisensory memories affect later auditory and visual object discrimination. (2015, unknown): “A substantial body of work suggests that multisensory interactions can already occur at early latencies and within primary or near-primary cortices (reviewed in Murray, et al., 2012; van Atteveldt et al., 2014).”
The multisensory function of the human primary visual cortex. (2016, background): “Collectively, these findings provide strong evidence for a direct link between cross-modal responses in the primary visual cortex and perception (see also van Atteveldt et al. (2014b) for variations in multisensory processes as a function of task as well as across retinotopic representations).”
Top-down control and early multisensory processes: chicken vs. egg (2015, background): “…per se (e.g., Matusz and Eimer, 2011, 2013; Matusz et al., 2015; Talsma and Woldorff, 2005; but see Murray et al., 2004; SotoFaraco et al., 2004; Tiippana et al., 2004; Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org March 2015 | Volume 9 | Article 17 | 1 INTEGRATIVE…”
Multisensory context portends object memory. (2014, unknown): “Traditionally, memory has been scientifically investigated under unisensory conditions, despite most real-world situations being multisensory and despite multisensory information oftentimes benefiting perception and thus being well-poised to facilitate memory [4].”
Contextual factors multiplex to control multisensory processes (2016, background): “More broadly, the current study sheds new light on the ongoing debate regarding the influence of top-down control on multisensory processes [De Meo et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2015; van Atteveldt et al., 2014; Talsma et al., 2010; ten Oever et al., unpublished data].”
The Construct of the Multisensory Temporal Binding Window and its Dysregulation in Developmental Disabilities (2014, background): “In addition to illustrating the flexibility inherent in multisensory processes, there are strong suggestions as to the mechanistic underpinnings of such adaptive networks and integrative processes, including oscillatory phase resetting and divisive normalization (van Atteveldt et al., 2014).”