Automatic multisensory integration follows subjective confidence rather than objective performance.

Yi Gao, Kai Xue, Brian Odegaard, Dobromir Rahnev
{"title":"Automatic multisensory integration follows subjective confidence rather than objective performance.","authors":"Yi Gao, Kai Xue, Brian Odegaard, Dobromir Rahnev","doi":"10.1038/s44271-025-00221-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is well known that sensory information from one modality can automatically affect judgments from a different sensory modality. However, it remains unclear what determines the strength of the influence of an irrelevant sensory cue from one modality on a perceptual judgment for a different modality. Here we test whether the strength of multisensory impact by an irrelevant sensory cue depends on participants' objective accuracy or subjective confidence for that cue. We created visual motion stimuli with low vs. high overall motion energy, where high-energy stimuli yielded higher confidence but lower accuracy in a visual-only task. We then tested the impact of the low- and high-energy visual stimuli on auditory motion perception in 99 participants. We found that the high-energy visual stimuli influenced the auditory motion judgments more strongly than the low-energy visual stimuli, consistent with their higher confidence but contrary to their lower accuracy. A computational model assuming common principles underlying confidence reports and multisensory integration captured these effects. Our findings show that automatic multisensory integration follows subjective confidence rather than objective performance and suggest the existence of common computations across vastly different stages of perceptual decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":"3 1","pages":"38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11896883/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communications Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00221-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is well known that sensory information from one modality can automatically affect judgments from a different sensory modality. However, it remains unclear what determines the strength of the influence of an irrelevant sensory cue from one modality on a perceptual judgment for a different modality. Here we test whether the strength of multisensory impact by an irrelevant sensory cue depends on participants' objective accuracy or subjective confidence for that cue. We created visual motion stimuli with low vs. high overall motion energy, where high-energy stimuli yielded higher confidence but lower accuracy in a visual-only task. We then tested the impact of the low- and high-energy visual stimuli on auditory motion perception in 99 participants. We found that the high-energy visual stimuli influenced the auditory motion judgments more strongly than the low-energy visual stimuli, consistent with their higher confidence but contrary to their lower accuracy. A computational model assuming common principles underlying confidence reports and multisensory integration captured these effects. Our findings show that automatic multisensory integration follows subjective confidence rather than objective performance and suggest the existence of common computations across vastly different stages of perceptual decision making.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信