↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00445
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yi-Chuan Chen, Charles Spence

Abstract

There has been longstanding interest from both experimental psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists in the potential modulatory role of various top-down factors on multisensory integration/perception in humans. One such top-down influence, often referred to in the literature as the 'unity assumption,' is thought to occur in those situations in which an observer considers that various of the unisensory stimuli that they have been presented with belong to one and the same object or event (Welch and Warren, 1980). Here, we review the possible factors that may lead to the emergence of the unity assumption. We then critically evaluate the evidence concerning the consequences of the unity assumption from studies of the spatial and temporal ventriloquism effects, from the McGurk effect, and from the Colavita visual dominance paradigm. The research that has been published to date using these tasks provides support for the claim that the unity assumption influences multisensory perception under at least a subset of experimental conditions. We then consider whether the notion has been superseded in recent years by the introduction of priors in Bayesian causal inference models of human multisensory perception. We suggest that the prior of common cause (that is, the prior concerning whether multisensory signals originate from the same source or not) offers the most useful way to quantify the unity assumption as a continuous cognitive variable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 218 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 20%
Student > Master 36 16%
Researcher 27 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 45 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 79 36%
Neuroscience 29 13%
Engineering 10 5%
Computer Science 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 31 14%
Unknown 54 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,277,054
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,496
of 30,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,687
of 309,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#274
of 541 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 309,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 541 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.