x 10 9 may be x 10⁹, chi 2 5 may be chi-squared with five degrees of freedom, and 1 2 may be one half. Read any expression here against the published paper before relying on it.standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 1 of 5 relations here carries that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | how quickly the auditory spatial map is recalibrated by conflicting visual information, and whether accumulated evidence of error is required to trigger it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | is cross-sensory recalibration engaged from the first discrepancy, or only after repeated and consistent error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | shows the auditory spatial map shifts after a single 35 ms exposure to an audiovisual discrepancy, so recalibration is continuously operational rather than triggered by accumulated error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | visual recalibration of auditory space Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | the field's default position is diagnosed as an artefact of which experiments existed: no one had tested single exposures, so the accumulation account won implicitly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the experiment is not built but found - pseudorandom interleaving in a dataset collected for another question makes every auditory trial's predecessor a single-exposure manipulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | two accounts that agree on most trials are separated by isolating the subset where they predict opposite directions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the dependent measure is defined relative to each observer's own average response to that sound position, so a shift of zero is what randomness would give Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the preceding-auditory-trial condition serves as the control that a general response bias would also have produced, and it shows nothing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | an unmeasured variable - whether the two stimuli were perceived as one event - is recovered indirectly from the spatial judgments themselves Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the cutoff defining that inferred variable is disclosed as arbitrary and checked for robustness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the decay of the effect is traced by stepping back through the trial history rather than by a separate experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | accumulation is measured by finding runs of consecutive same-direction discrepancies that the randomisation happened to produce Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the paper names the possibility that its own randomised design created the plasticity it reports Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the stability objection is answered by the unity dependence: large shifts happen only when the signals are taken to share a source, which is when a discrepancy implies a real error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | A response-level (rather than perceptual) account of the visual bias cannot be ruled out. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the perceptual interpretation of the visual bias: a response-level account CANNOT BE RULED OUT, though previous sound position had no effect on the current auditory response | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The reason the effect fails to cross the midline is undetermined. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the hemifield result specifically: IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THIS REFLECTS A MIDLINE BOUNDARY or something else - the effect does not transfer across hemifields | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Perceived unity was inferred from spatial judgements rather than reported by observers. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim resting on perceived unity: it was inferred from spatial judgements rather than reported by the observers | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The trajectory of recalibration over repeated exposures needs a dedicated, larger and blocked design. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the time course of recalibration: FUTURE STUDIES SHOULD FURTHER EXPLORE THE DYNAMICS OF RECALIBRATION ... WITH LARGER SAMPLE SIZES AND ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF REPETITIONS | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the visual-location bias cannot be shown to be perceptual rather than a decision-level response bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the perceptual interpretation of the visual-location bias: a general response bias explanation is LESS LIKELY; HOWEVER, THIS EXPLANATION CANNOT BE RULED OUT | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | why vision teaches audition and not the reverse is undecided between reliability weighting and a fixed teacher role Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the reliability-weighting account of why vision teaches audition: ONE MODALITY (E.G., VISION) [may] ENJOY THE HARDWIRED STATUS OF TEACHER REGARDLESS OF THE QUALITY OF THE SIGNAL AT ANY GIVEN TIME | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the randomly varying discrepancies may themselves have induced an unusually plastic state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the recalibration rate reported here: EXPOSURE TO RANDOMLY VARYING DISCREPANCIES ACROSS TRIALS IN THIS EXPERIMENT INDUCED THE NERVOUS SYSTEM TO ENTER A 'PLASTIC STATE', THUS RESULTING [in] A HIGHER RATE OF RECALIBRATION THAN USUAL | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | whether the shift is capped or the learning rate slows is not resolved Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the plateau in the shift: it COULD BE DUE TO A HARDWIRED CAP ON THE DEGREE OF CHANGE IN THESE BASIC MAPS, OR ALTERNATIVELY, DUE TO A SLOWING DOWN OF THE LEARNING RATE | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | perception of unity was never asked for and had to be inferred from the responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - perception of unity was never asked for and had to be inferred from the spatial responses | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the teaching signal and self-supervised learning, imported to describe one modality correcting another with no external feedback Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the trial-by-trial adaptation-to-induced-error paradigm, imported as the expected timescale that sensory maps were assumed not to share Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | stimulus position along the azimuth was randomised across trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a shift in reported location is a response bias built up over an ordered sequence · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the size of the shift was examined as a function of audiovisual discrepancy, including the largest discrepancies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the recalibration is ordinary visual capture - at large discrepancies visual bias should fall away, and the shift does not · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | ventriloquist aftereffect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ventriloquist aftereffect | concepts[1] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| concepts | auditory–visual discrepancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auditory–visual discrepancy | concepts[16] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | auditory localization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: auditory localization | concepts[17] | the paper's words | |
| unhoused_relations | perception → learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. NO BOUNDARY CAN BE DRAWN - the CONCEPTUAL form of the negative relation / This is a claim about the concepts themselves, not about this study's data. No edge type can express it: all eight assert that a relation HOLDS. Four words that dissolve a boundary two literatures are built on. There is nowhere in the schema for a FINDING WHOSE CONTENT IS THAT A DISTINCTION IS LESS SHARP THAN ASSUMED. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | recalibration - as a slow developmental or post-injury repair process versus as a continuously running self-maintenance mechanism; the paper moves the term from the first to the second Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the shift in perceived sound location - as a bias toward the absolute location of the seen stimulus versus as a shift of the auditory map in the direction of the discrepancy; the two coincide on most trials and are separated only on a designed subset Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | bias - response bias at the decision level versus perceptual bias as a prior expectation; the data cannot separate them Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | perception versus learning - a distinction the result is said to blur, since a single 35 ms exposure changes a perceptual map Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | adaptation - motor, where an error signal is directly fed back, versus sensory, where one modality must serve as the teacher Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | why vision teaches audition - because its estimates are more reliable here, or because it holds the teacher role regardless of signal quality; two senses of a modality being dominant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: existence — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: re-analysis of a spatial localisation dataset in which pseudorandom interleaving of 35 auditory, visual and audiovisual conditions makes each auditory trial's predecessor an unplanned single-exposure manipulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: behavioural-experiment — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: cross-sensory recalibration of auditory space by vision - the ventriloquist aftereffect, at single-trial timescale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: visual recalibration of auditory space — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Wozny et al., 2010 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → McLaughlin, 1967; Redding and Wallace, 2003; Thoroughman et al., 2007 (motor adaptation) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Hofman et al., 1998; Zwiers et al., 2003 (sensory recalibration as slow, long-term adjustment) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the timescale: SENSORY RECALIBRATION HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN REGARDED AS A PROCESS FOR ADJUSTING TO LONG-TERM CHANGES SUCH AS THOSE OCCURRING DURING DEVELOPMENT OR AFTER A PERMANENT DAMAGE FROM INJURY OR STROKE - against a single-trial effect | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the accumulation hypothesis, that recalibration requires repeated and consistent evidence of error before engaging Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: when the mechanism engages, stated by the paper as a numbered pair: (1) A MECHANISM THAT BECOMES ENGAGED FROM THE ONSET OF EXPOSURE TO THE DISCREPANCY; AND (2) A MECHANISM THAT REQUIRES ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCE OF ERROR IN THE FORM OF REPEATED AND CONSISTENT DISCREPANCY BEFORE IT BECOMES ENGAGED | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | critiques → the inference from absent evidence to the accumulation account, which the field had made implicitly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS AN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ACTING AS SUPPORT. 'Quotation withheld' Nobody argued for the slow account on its merits - it won by default because the fast one had not been demonstrated, and the paper names that as the reason the field believes what it believes. A 'critiques' records a dispute with a hypothesis and drops that THE SUPPORT WAS NEVER POSITIVE. | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → ventriloquist-aftereffect studies using hundreds or thousands of exposures at a fixed discrepancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the view that spatial and temporal maps are foundational and therefore stable Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: whether the map is expected to move at all: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL MAPS ARE CONSIDERED FOUNDATIONAL TO ALL PERCEPTUAL PROCESSES AND ARE EXPECTED TO BE FAIRLY STABLE | claim_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → reliability-weighted accounts of cross-modal dominance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → motor adaptation studies showing recalibration within a few trials of induced error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | ventriloquist aftereffect —is-a→ cross-sensory recalibration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span names the 'ventriloquist aftereffect'; 'sensory recalibration' is named in the previous sentences, 'cross-sensory recalibration' nowhere. | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | response bias —distinct-from→ perceptual bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the bias 'could reflect' either a response or a perceptual bias; distinct-from is loose. also in: response bias · perceptual bias | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | reliability —causes→ teaching signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.75
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but 'It seems that' vision provided the teaching signal because it was more reliable; hedged. also in: reliability · teaching signal | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | plastic state —causes→ cross-sensory recalibration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but it is 'conceivable' that a plastic state raised the rate of recalibration; hedged. also in: plastic state · cross-sensory recalibration | concept_edges[7] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | auditory–visual discrepancy —causes→ auditory localization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record. The span always stated the relation; the endpoint names did not match its words. 'normalised' maps them onto the concepts the record already has. · the relation stated: the shift in where a sound is heard is DRIVEN BY the preceding audio-visual mismatch also in: auditory–visual discrepancy · auditory localization | concept_edges[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA by ranks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon signed-rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon signed-rank test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multiple-comparison correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple-comparison correction | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | linear regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: linear regression | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA by ranks test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Bonferroni–Holm correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Bonferroni–Holm correction | content_tags.statistics[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | SD Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SD | content_tags.statistics[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A single exposure of a few milliseconds to a spatially discrepant sound and flash shifted where the next isolated sound was heard. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The shift followed the sign and size of the audio-visual discrepancy rather than the absolute position of the seen stimulus, identifying it as recalibration of the auditory map rather than a bias toward the visual location. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Separately from recalibration, auditory localisation was pulled toward the absolute position of the visual stimulus presented on the preceding unisensory visual trial. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The position of a preceding unisensory auditory stimulus had no significant effect on the current auditory judgement, arguing against a simple response bias. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Recalibration was larger after audio-visual trials perceived as coming from one source, suggesting perceived unity influences the size of the shift. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Repeating discrepancies in the same direction accumulated a progressively larger shift, but at a decelerating rate, implying a decreasing learning rate rather than a fixed step. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The recalibration was one-directional: no corresponding shift of the visual spatial map by sound was detectable. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The effect weakened the further back in the trial history the audio-visual exposure lay, because intervening discrepancies pushed in other directions. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | auditory localisation shifted significantly with the location of the visual stimulus on the preceding trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no significant effect followed the location of a preceding auditory trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the audiovisual discrepancy on the preceding trial significantly shifted auditory localisation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | on the subset where the two accounts predict opposite directions, the shift followed the discrepancy and not the absolute visual location Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | recalibration followed a single presentation of a few milliseconds, with no feedback or reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the shift was larger when the preceding audiovisual pair had been perceived as one event Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the effect degraded the further back in the trial history the preceding audiovisual trial lay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the shift grew with the number of consecutive same-direction discrepancies Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | no shift of the visual spatial map was found, so the teaching relation is one-directional Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a single exposure produced a significant, sizable shift of about 5% in the spatial map Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | auditory localisation was about 2.4 times as variable as visual localisation, 6.0 against 2.5 degrees Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | even the smallest discrepancy tested, 6.5 degrees, shifted the subsequent percept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cross-sensory recalibration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-sensory recalibration | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ventriloquist aftereffect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ventriloquist aftereffect | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cross-sensory recalibration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-sensory recalibration | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ventriloquist aftereffect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ventriloquist aftereffect | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | shift in perceived auditory location Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shift in perceived auditory location | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | perception of unity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perception of unity | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | spatial discrepancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spatial discrepancy | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | type of stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: type of stimuli | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | shift in perceived auditory location Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shift in perceived auditory location | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | position along the azimuth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: position along the azimuth | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | shift in perceived auditory location Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shift in perceived auditory location | content_tags.variables[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | AV spatial discrepancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: AV spatial discrepancy | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | perception of unity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perception of unity | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | number of repeated exposures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: number of repeated exposures | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | n = 146 — number of observers tested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 35 ms — duration of the auditory (and visual) stimulus, i.e. the entire exposure that produced recalibration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0 to ± 26° — range of audio-visual spatial discrepancy produced by the five speaker and five visual locations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 5% — size of the auditory map shift after a single exposure, as a fraction of the experienced discrepancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 6.5° — smallest audio-visual discrepancy tested that still produced a shift in the subsequent auditory percept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 6.0° — average standard deviation of unisensory auditory localisation responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 2.5° — average standard deviation of unisensory visual localisation responses, i.e. vision was the more reliable modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p = 0.000 — significance of the effect of preceding visual location on the auditory shift Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 35 ms — duration of the auditory and visual stimuli, and so of the single exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | n = 146 — observers Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0 to ± 26° — range of audiovisual spatial discrepancy across conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 6.0° against 2.5° — average response standard deviation, auditory against visual Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 5% — shift in the spatial map after a single exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 6.5° — the smallest discrepancy that still produced a shift Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.5° and 6° — the cutoffs separating post-unity from post-independence trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[14] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.