Psychophysical study reveals sound-induced flash illusions depend on local visual reliability in low-vision individuals, indicating multisensory integration requires adequate visual input.
Multisensory integration is often assumed to increase when visual input is degraded, yet it remains unclear whether low vision enhances susceptibility to cross-modal illusions or whether such effects depend on local variations in visual reliability. We tested low-vision and sighted control participants on the sound-induced flash illusion (SIFI) across 24 visual-field locations, concurrently measuring baseline flash-detection accuracy. While both groups showed the expected auditory-driven increase in perceived flash numerosity, sighted controls were significantly more susceptible to the classic "double-flash" percept. While illusion strength approached marginal significance for eccentricity, it was more robustly predicted by local flash-detection accuracy, indicating that sound-induced percepts depend on the availability of a reliable visual signal. Exploratory Bayesian causal inference modeling revealed that when fitted across all locations, model performance was systematically weaker and more variable for low-vision observers. Crucially, however, restricting the analysis to high-visibility locations yielded robust model fits by the Bayesian information criterion and close agreement between observed and predicted response proportions. This suggests that, like sighted controls, low-vision participants continue to behave in a manner broadly consistent with Bayesian-optimal inference when visual information is sufficiently reliable. Together, these findings demonstrate that low vision does not globally amplify audiovisual interactions; rather, multisensory enhancements are constrained by local visual reliability, and Bayesian-like inference remains most evident when provided with a sufficient threshold of sensory input.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: