ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Prior expectations guide multisensory integration during face-to-face communication.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Face-to-face communication relies on the seamless integration of multisensory signals, including voice, gaze, and head movements, to convey meaning effectively. This poses a fundamental computational challenge: optimally binding signals sharing the same communicative intention (e.g., looking at the addressee while speaking) and segregating unrelated signals (e.g., looking away while coughing), all within the rapid turn-taking dynamics of conversation. Critically, the computational mechanisms underlying this extraordinary feat remain largely unknown. Here, we cast face-to-face communication as a Bayesian Causal Inference problem to formally test whether prior expectations arbitrate between the integration and segregation of vocal and bodily signals. Specifically, we asked whether there is a stronger prior tendency to integrate audiovisual signals that convey the same communicative intention, thus establishing a crossmodal pragmatic correspondence. Additionally, we evaluated whether observers solve causal inference by adopting optimal Bayesian decision strategies or non-optimal approximate heuristics. In a spatial localization task, participants watched audiovisual clips of a speaker where the audio (voice) and the video (bodily cues) were sampled either from congruent positions or at increasing spatial disparities. Crucially, we manipulated the pragmatic correspondence of the signals: in a communicative condition, the speaker addressed the participant with their head, gaze and speech; in a non-communicative condition, the speaker kept the head down and produced a meaningless vocalization. We measured audiovisual integration through the ventriloquist effect, which quantifies how much the perceived audio position is misplaced towards the video position. Combining psychophysics with computational modelling, we show that observers solved audiovisual causal inference using non-optimal heuristics that nevertheless approximate optimal Bayesian inference with high accuracy. Remarkably, participants showed a stronger tendency to integrate vocal and bodily information when signals conveyed congruent communicative intent, suggesting that pragmatic correspondences enhance multisensory integration. Collectively, our findings provide novel and compelling evidence that face-to-face communication is shaped by deeply ingrained expectations about how multisensory signals should be structured and interpreted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.