Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Sounds Are Perceived as Louder When Accompanied by Visual Movement

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Multisensory Research
For more content, see Seeing and Perceiving and Spatial Vision.

In this study, we present three experiments investigating the influence of visual movement on auditory judgements. In Experiments 1 and 2, two bursts of noise were presented and participants were required to judge which was louder using a forced-choice task. One of the two bursts was accompanied by a moving disc. The other burst either was accompanied by no visual stimulus (Experiment 1) or by a static disc (Experiment 2). When the two sounds were of identical intensity participants judged the sound accompanied by the moving disc as louder. The effect was greater when auditory stimuli were of the same intensity but it was still present for mid-to-high intensities. In a third, control, experiment participants judged the pitch (and not the loudness) of a pair of tones. Here the pattern was different: there was no effect of visual motion for sounds of the same pitch, with a reversed effect for mid-to-high pitch differences (the effect of motion lowered the pitch). This showed no shift of response towards the interval accompanied by the moving disc. In contrast, the effect on pitch was reversed in comparison to what observed for loudness, with mid-to-high frequency sound accompanied by motion rated as lower in pitch respect to the static intervals.The natural tendency for moving objects to elicit sounds may lead to an automatic perceptual influence of vision over sound particularly when the latter is ambiguous. This is the first account of this novel audio-visual interaction.

Affiliations: 1: 1University of California, Riverside, CA, USA ; 2: 2Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Italy ; 3: 3School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK ; 4: 4Sackler Centre for Consciousness Science, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:

Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

1. Alais D., Burr D. (2004). "No direction-specific bimodal facilitation for audiovisual motion detection", Cogn. Brain Res. Vol 19, 185194. [Crossref]
2. Baumann O., Greenlee M. W. (2007). "Neural correlates of coherent audiovisual motion perception", Cereb. Cortex Vol 17, 14331443. [Crossref]
3. Ben-Artzi E., Marks L. E. (1995). "Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: role of stimulus difference", Percept. Psychophys. Vol 57, 11511162. [Crossref]
4. Bolognini N., Frassinetti F., Serino A., Làdavas E. (2005). "“Acoustical vision” of below threshold stimuli: interaction among spatially converging audiovisual inputs", Exp. Brain Res. Vol 160, 273282. [Crossref]
5. Brainard D. H. (1997). "The psychophysics toolbox", Spat. Vis. Vol 10, 433436. [Crossref]
6. Bremmer F., Schlack A., Shah N. J., Zafiris O., Kubischik M., Hoffmann K. P., Zilles K., Fink G. R. (2001). "Polymodal motion processing in posterior parietal and promotor cortex: a human fMRI study strongly implies equivalencies between humans and monkeys", Neuron Vol 29, 287296. [Crossref]
7. Frassinetti F., Bolognini N., Làdavas E. (2002). "Enhancement of visual perception by crossmodal visuo-auditory interaction", Exp. Brain Res. Vol 147, 332343. [Crossref]
8. Freeman E., Driver J. (2008). "Direction of visual apparent motion driven solely by timing of a static sound", Curr. Biol. Vol 18(16), 12621266. [Crossref]
9. Grassi M., Casco C. (2012). "Revealing the origin of the audiovisual bounce-inducing effect", See. Perceiv. Vol 25, 223233. [Crossref]
10. Grassi M., Pavan A. (2012). "The subjective duration of audiovisual looming and receding stimuli", Attent. Percept. Psychophys. Vol 74, 13211333. [Crossref]
11. Grassi M., Pastore M., Lemaitre G. (2013). "Looking at the world with your ears: how do we get the size of an object from its sound?" Acta Psychol. Vol 143, 96104. [Crossref]
12. Green D. M., Swets J. A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
13. Jaekl P. M., Soto-Faraco S. (2010). "Audiovisual contrast enhancement is articulated primarily via the M-pathway", Brain Res. Vol 1366, 8592. [Crossref]
14. Lewkowicz D. J., Minar N. J. (2014). "Infants are not sensitive to synesthetic cross-modality correspondences. A comment to Walker et al. (2010)", Psychol. Sci. Vol 25, 832834. [Crossref]
15. Lippert M., Logothetis N. K., Kayser C. (2007). "Improvement of visual contrast detection by a simultaneous sound", Brain Res. Vol 1173, 102109. [Crossref]
16. Maniglia M., Grassi M., Casco C., Campana G. (2012). "The origin of the audiovisual bounce inducing effect: a TMS study", Neuropsychologia Vol 50, 14781482. [Crossref]
17. McGurk H., MacDonald J. (1976). "Hearing lips and seeing voices", Nature Vol 264(5588), 746748. [Crossref]
18. Monaghan P., Mattock K., Walker P. (2012). "The role of sound symbolism in language learning", J. Exp. Psycho. Learn. Mem. Cogn. Vol 38, 11521164. [Crossref]
19. Nava E., Grassi M., Turati C. (2016). "Audio-visual, visuo-tactile and audio-tactile correspondences in preschoolers", Multisens. Res. Vol 29, 93111. [Crossref]
20. Neuhoff J. G. (2001). "An adaptive bias in the perception of looming auditory motion", Ecol. Psychol. Vol 13, 87110. [Crossref]
21. Odgaard E. C., Arieh Y., Marks L. E. (2003). "Cross-modal enhancement of perceived brightness; sensory interaction versus response bias", Percept. Psychophys. Vol 65, 123132. [Crossref]
22. Odgaard E. C., Arieh Y., Marks L. E. (2004). "Brighter noise: sensory enhancement of perceived loudness by concurrent visual stimulation", Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. Vol 4, 127132. [Crossref]
23. Parise C. V., Spence C. (2009). "‘When birds of a feather flock together’: synesthetic correspondences modulate audiovisual integration in non-synesthetes", PLoS One Vol 4(5). DOI:. [Crossref]
24. Pelli D. G. (1997). "The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies", Spat. Vis. Vol 10, 437442. [Crossref]
25. Phillips-Silver J., Trainor L. J. (2007). "Hearing what the body feels: auditory encoding of rhythmic movement", Cognition Vol 105, 533546. DOI:. [Crossref]
26. Sadaghiani S., Maier J. X., Noppeney U. (2009). "Natural, metaphoric and linguistic auditory direction signals have distinct influences on visual motion processing", J. Neurosci. Vol 29, 64906499. [Crossref]
27. Saenz M., Koch C. (2008). "The sound of change: visually-induced auditory synesthesia", Curr. Biol. Vol 18, R650R651. [Crossref]
28. Seitz A. R., Kim R., Shams L. (2006). "Sound facilitates visual learning", Curr. Biol. Vol 16, 14221427. DOI:. [Crossref]
29. Sekuler R., Sekuler A. B., Lau R. (1997). "Sound alters visual motion perception", Nature Vol 385(6614), 308. [Crossref]
30. Shams L., Kamitani Y., Shimojo S. (2000). "Illusions: what you see is what you hear", Nature Vol 408(6814), 788. [Crossref]
31. Soranzo A., Grassi M. (2014). "PSYCHOACOUSTICS: a comprehensive MATLAB toolbox for auditory testing", Front. Psychol. Vol 5, 712. DOI:. [Crossref]
32. Soto-Faraco S., Kingstone A., Spence C. (2003). "Multisensory contributions to the perception of motion", Neuropsychologia Vol 41, 18471862. [Crossref]
33. Stein B. E., London N., Wilkinson L. K., Price D. D. (1996). "Enhancement of perceived visual intensity by auditory stimuli: a psychophysical analysis", J. Cogn. Neurosci. Vol 8, 497506. [Crossref]
34. Tanner T. A. J., Haller R. W., Atkinson R. C. (1967). "Signal recognition as influenced by presentation schedules", Percept. Psychophys. Vol 2, 349358. [Crossref]
35. Teramoto W., Hidaka S., Sugita Y., Sakamoto S., Gyoba J., Iwaya Y., Suzuki Y. (2012). "Sounds can alter the perceived direction of a moving visual object", J. Vis. Vol 12(3). DOI:. [Crossref]
36. Walker P., Bremner J. G., Mason U., Spring J., Mattock K., Slater A., Johnson S. P. (2010a). "Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences", Psychol. Sci. Vol 21, 2125. [Crossref]
37. Walker P., Francis B. J., Walker L. (2010b). "The brightness-weight illusion darker objects look heavier but feel lighter", Exp. Psychol. Vol 57, 462469. [Crossref]
38. Yarrow K., Haggard P., Rothwell J. C. (2008). "Vibrotactile-auditory interactions are post-perceptual", Perception Vol 37, 11141130. DOI:. [Crossref]

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Multisensory Research — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation