↓ Skip to main content

Gone in a flash: manipulation of audiovisual temporal integration using transcranial magnetic stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Gone in a flash: manipulation of audiovisual temporal integration using transcranial magnetic stimulation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00571
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roy H. Hamilton, Martin Wiener, Daniel E. Drebing, H. Branch Coslett

Abstract

While converging evidence implicates the right inferior parietal lobule in audiovisual integration, its role has not been fully elucidated by direct manipulation of cortical activity. Replicating and extending an experiment initially reported by Kamke et al. (2012), we employed the sound-induced flash illusion, in which a single visual flash, when accompanied by two auditory tones, is misperceived as multiple flashes (Wilson, 1987; Shams et al., 2000). Slow repetitive (1 Hz) TMS administered to the right angular gyrus, but not the right supramarginal gyrus, induced a transient decrease in the Peak Perceived Flashes (PPF), reflecting reduced susceptibility to the illusion. This finding independently confirms that perturbation of networks involved in multisensory integration can result in a more veridical representation of asynchronous auditory and visual events and that cross-modal integration is an active process in which the objective is the identification of a meaningful constellation of inputs, at times at the expense of accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Poland 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 47 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Researcher 11 22%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 47%
Neuroscience 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 January 2021.
All research outputs
#14,177,097
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,007
of 29,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,547
of 280,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#629
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 280,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.