Skip to main content

Multisensory integration is independent of perceived simultaneity


The importance of multisensory integration for perception and action has long been recognised. Integrating information from individual senses increases the chance of survival by reducing the variability in the incoming signals, thus allowing us to respond more rapidly. Reaction times (RTs) are fastest when the components of the multisensory signals are simultaneous. This response facilitation is traditionally attributed to multisensory integration. However, it is unclear if facilitation of RTs occurs when stimuli are perceived as synchronous or are actually physically synchronous. Repeated exposure to audiovisual asynchrony can change the delay at which multisensory stimuli are perceived as simultaneous, thus changing the delay at which the stimuli are integrated—perceptually. Here we set out to determine how such changes in multisensory integration for perception affect our ability to respond to multisensory events. If stimuli perceived as simultaneous were reacted to most rapidly, it would suggest a common system for multisensory integration for perception and action. If not, it would suggest separate systems. We measured RTs to auditory, visual, and audiovisual stimuli following exposure to audiovisual asynchrony. Exposure affected the variability of the unisensory RT distributions; in particular, the slowest RTs were either speed up or slowed down (in the direction predicted from shifts in perceived simultaneity). Additionally, the multisensory facilitation of RTs (beyond statistical summation) only occurred when audiovisual onsets were physically synchronous, rather than when they appeared simultaneous. We conclude that the perception of synchrony is therefore independent of multisensory integration and suggest a division between multisensory processes that are fast (automatic and unaffected by temporal adaptation) and those that are slow (perceptually driven and adaptable).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. The GEE is similar to the one described in “Data analysis” with a few minor differences. The within-subjects variables were SOA and “week” since in order to have enough data at a given SOA, multisensory RT data needed to be combined across sessions.

  2. Using an uncorrected alpha-rate, there were several additional SOAs that produced RTs that were significantly slower than the race model demonstrating a trend towards response inhibition: SOA = −80 ms, mean response inhibition () = 2.6 ms ± (SE)1.7 ms, t 29 = 2.09, p = .045; SOA = −60 ms, = 3.9 ± 1.6 ms, t 29 = 2.52, p = .018; SOA = −40 ms, = 3.5 ± 1.6 ms, t 29 = 2.14, p = .041; SOA = 60 ms, = 4.0 ± 1.6 ms, t 29 = 2.59, p = .015; SOA = 100 ms, = 4.1 ± 1.9 ms, t 29 = 2.18, p = .038.


Download references


Thanks to Alice Newton-Fenner for help with data collection and Phil Jaekl for excellent manuscript revision suggestions. Vanessa Harrar was supported by the Mary Somerville Junior Research Fellowship (Somerville College, Oxford University, UK), and by the Banting Fellowship (Canadian Institute of Health Research, Canada). LRH was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Harrar.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 262 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harrar, V., Harris, L.R. & Spence, C. Multisensory integration is independent of perceived simultaneity. Exp Brain Res 235, 763–775 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Multisensory integration
  • Race model
  • Reaction time
  • Miller’s inequality
  • Stimulus onset asynchrony
  • Adaptation
  • Time
  • Crossmodal
  • Ex-Gaussian