What you see is what you hear: Twenty years of research using the Sound-Induced Flash Illusion

Hirst, Rebecca J.; McGovern, David; Setti, Annalisa; Shams, Ladan; Newell, Fiona N.

doi:10.31234/osf.io/7m586

Cited by 11 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 180 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, a number of studies have shown agerelated changes in multisensory integration and perception (Murray et al, 2016;Hirst et al, 2018Hirst et al, , 2020. Overall, these studies indicate that multisensory integration is plastic and dynamic across development from early life to adulthood.…”

Section: Clinical Applications and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Double Flash Illusions: Current Findings and Future Directions

Keil

2020

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty years ago, the first report on the sound-induced double flash illusion, a visual illusion induced by sound, was published. In this paradigm, participants are presented with different numbers of auditory and visual stimuli. In case of an incongruent number of auditory and visual stimuli, the influence of auditory information on visual perception can lead to the perception of the illusion. Thus, combining two auditory stimuli with one visual stimulus can induce the perception of two visual stimuli, the so-called fission illusion. Alternatively, combining one auditory stimulus with two visual stimuli can induce the perception of one visual stimulus, the so-called fusion illusion. Overall, current research shows that the illusion is a reliable indicator of multisensory integration. It has also been replicated using different stimulus combinations, such as visual and tactile stimuli. Importantly, the robustness of the illusion allows the widespread use for assessing multisensory integration across different groups of healthy participants and clinical populations and in various task setting. This review will give an overview of the experimental evidence supporting the illusion, the current state of research concerning the influence of cognitive processes on the illusion, the neural mechanisms underlying the illusion, and future research directions. Moreover, an exemplary experimental setup will be described with different options to examine perception, alongside code to test and replicate the illusion online or in the laboratory.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Applications and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 85%

Double Flash Illusions: Current Findings and Future Directions

Keil

2020

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Keil (2020) also summarized the neural mechanisms underlying the illusion. Hirst et al. (2020) also published a review covering 20 years of literature, and the review not only summarized the theoretical models that explained the SiFI but also summarized the findings of electroencephalography and functional magnetic resonance imaging.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition Suppression in Visual and Auditory Modalities Affects the Sound-Induced Flash Illusion

Wang¹,

Heng

et al. 2021

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sound-induced flash illusion (SiFI) refers to the illusion that the number of visual flashes is equal to the number of auditory sounds when the visual flashes are accompanied by an unequal number of auditory sounds presented within 100 ms. The effect of repetition suppression (RS), an adaptive effect caused by stimulus repetition, upon the SiFI has not been investigated. Based on the classic SiFI paradigm, the present study investigated whether RS would affect the SiFI differently by adding preceding stimuli in visual and auditory modalities prior to the appearance of audiovisual stimuli. The results showed the auditory RS effect on the SiFI varied with the number of preceding auditory stimuli. The hit rate was higher with two preceding auditory stimuli than one preceding auditory stimulus in fission illusion, but it did not affect the size of the fusion illusion. However, the visual RS had no effect on the size of the fission and fusion illusions. The present study suggested that RS could affect the SiFI, indicating that the RS effect in different modalities would differentially affect the magnitude of the SiFI. In the process of multisensory integration, the visual and auditory modalities had asymmetrical RS effects.

show abstract

“…Andersen et al, 2004;Takeshima & Gyoba, 2013;Pérez-Bellido et al, 2015) and between (e.g. Foss-Feig et al, 2010;Setti et al, 2011;McGovern et al, 2014;Stevenson et al, 2014;Noel et al, 2016) groups (as reviewed in Hirst et al, 2020). Furthermore, it has also been demonstrated that the properties of the temporal binding window associated with the SIFI can change in the same individuals following a period of perceptual training (Setti et al, 2014;McGovern et al, in prep), while other studies show that the magnitude of the SIFI is modulated by expertise (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ernst & Banks, 2002;Alais & Burr, 2004;Shams et al, 2005). Since its discovery over 20 years ago, the SIFI has been employed as a useful means to assess the nature of multisensory perception in humans and has helped to reveal, amongst other things, the influences of perceptual experience, ageing and a variety of clinical conditions on multisensory integration (see Hirst et al, 2020 andKeil, 2020 for recent reviews).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Magnitude of the Sound-Induced Flash Illusion Does Not Increase Monotonically as a Function of Visual Stimulus Eccentricity

Gavin¹,

McGovern²

2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sound-induced flash illusion occurs when a rapidly presented visual stimulus is accompanied by two auditory stimuli, creating the illusory percept of two visual stimuli. While much research has focused on how the temporal proximity of the audiovisual stimuli impacts susceptibility to the illusion, comparatively less research has been dedicated to investigating the impact of spatial manipulations. Here, we aimed to assess whether manipulating the eccentricity of visual flash stimuli altered the properties of the temporal binding window associated with the SIFI. Twenty participants were required to report whether they perceived one or two flashes that were concurrently presented with one or two beeps. Visual stimuli were presented at one of four different retinal eccentricities (2.5, 5, 7.5 or 10 degrees below fixation) and audiovisual stimuli were separated by one of eight stimulus-onset asynchronies. In keeping with previous findings, increasing stimulus-onset asynchrony between the auditory and visual stimuli led to a marked decrease in susceptibility to the illusion allowing us to estimate the width and amplitude of the temporal binding window. However, varying the eccentricity of the visual stimulus had no effect on either the width or the peak amplitude of the temporal binding window, with a similar pattern of results observed for both the “fission” and “fusion” variants of the illusion. Thus, spatial manipulations of the audiovisual stimuli used to elicit the SIFI appear to have a weaker effect on the integration of sensory signals than temporal manipulations, a finding which has implications for neuroanatomical models of multisensory integration.

show abstract

What you see is what you hear: Twenty years of research using the Sound-Induced Flash Illusion

Cited by 11 publications

References 180 publications

Double Flash Illusions: Current Findings and Future Directions

Double Flash Illusions: Current Findings and Future Directions

Repetition Suppression in Visual and Auditory Modalities Affects the Sound-Induced Flash Illusion

The Magnitude of the Sound-Induced Flash Illusion Does Not Increase Monotonically as a Function of Visual Stimulus Eccentricity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About