↓ Skip to main content

Influences of Multisensory Experience on Subsequent Unisensory Processing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Influences of Multisensory Experience on Subsequent Unisensory Processing
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ladan Shams, David R. Wozny, Robyn Kim, Aaron Seitz

Abstract

Multisensory perception has been the focus of intense investigation in recent years. It is now well-established that crossmodal interactions are ubiquitous in perceptual processing and endow the system with improved precision, accuracy, processing speed, etc. While these findings have shed much light on principles and mechanisms of perception, ultimately it is not very surprising that multiple sources of information provides benefits in performance compared to a single source of information. Here, we argue that the more surprising recent findings are those showing that multisensory experience also influences the subsequent unisensory processing. For example, exposure to auditory-visual stimuli can change the way that auditory or visual stimuli are processed subsequently even in isolation. We review three sets of findings that represent three different types of learning ranging from perceptual learning, to sensory recalibration, to associative learning. In all these cases exposure to multisensory stimuli profoundly influences the subsequent unisensory processing. This diversity of phenomena may suggest that continuous modification of unisensory representations by multisensory relationships may be a general learning strategy employed by the brain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 176 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 27%
Researcher 34 18%
Student > Master 24 13%
Professor 12 6%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 23 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 35%
Neuroscience 32 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Computer Science 7 4%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 37 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 July 2014.
All research outputs
#20,236,582
of 24,880,704 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,835
of 33,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,933
of 192,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#199
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,880,704 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.