{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014120667522464698, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.959821428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of auditory reliability and ambiguous visual stimuli on auditory spatial discrimination

The brain combines information from multiple sensory modalities to interpret the environment. Multisensory integration is often modeled by ideal Bayesian causal inference, a model proposing that perceptual decisions arise from a statistical weighting of information from each sensory modality based on its reliability and relevance to the observer’s task. However, ideal Bayesian causal inference fails to describe human behavior in a simultaneous auditory spatial discrimination task in which spatially aligned visual stimuli improve performance despite providing no information about the correct response. This work tests the hypothesis that humans weight auditory and visual information in this task based on their relative reliabilities, even though the visual stimuli are task-uninformative, carrying no information about the correct response, and should be given zero weight. Listeners perform an auditory spatial discrimination task with relative reliabilities modulated by the stimulus durations. By comparing conditions in which task-uninformative visual stimuli are spatially aligned with auditory stimuli or centrally located (control condition), listeners are shown to have a larger multisensory effect when their auditory thresholds are worse. Even in cases in which visual stimuli are not task-informative, the brain combines sensory information that is scene-relevant, especially when the task is difficult due to unreliable auditory information.