Correctly establishing evidence for cue combination via gains in sensory precision: Why the choice of comparator matters.

Abstract

Studying how sensory signals from different sources (sensory cues) are integrated within or across multiple senses allows us to better understand the perceptual computations that lie at the foundation of adaptive behaviour. As such, determining the presence of precision gains - the classic hallmark of cue combination - is important for characterising perceptual systems, their development and functioning in clinical conditions. However, empirically measuring precision gains to distinguish cue combination from alternative perceptual strategies requires careful methodological considerations. Here, we note that the majority of existing studies that tested for cue combination either omitted this important contrast, or used an analysis approach that, unknowingly, strongly inflated false positives. Using simulations, we demonstrate that this approach enhances the chances of finding significant cue combination effects in up to 100% of cases, even when cues are not combined. We establish how this error arises when the wrong cue comparator is chosen and recommend an alternative analysis that is easy to implement but has only been adopted by relatively few studies. By comparing combined-cue perceptual precision with the best single-cue precision, determined for each observer individually rather than at the group level, researchers can enhance the credibility of their reported effects. We also note that testing for deviations from optimal predictions alone is not sufficient to ascertain whether cues are combined. Taken together, to correctly test for perceptual precision gains, we advocate for a careful comparator selection and task design to ensure that cue combination is tested with maximum power, while reducing the inflation of false positives.