Figure 2.

Multisensory integration was distinct from unisensory visual–visual integration. A, At every spatial location, multisensory integration produced substantial performance enhancements (94–168%; mean, 137%), whereas unisensory visual integration produced comparatively modest enhancements (31–79%; mean, 49%). Asterisks indicate comparisons that were significantly different (χ² test; p < 0.05). B, The pie charts to the left show performance in response to the modality-specific auditory (A₁) and visual (V₁ and V₂ are identical; see Materials and Methods) stimuli. The figures within the bordered region show the performance to the cross-modal (V₁A₁) and within-modal (V₁V₂) stimulus combinations. No-Go errors (NG; gray) and Wrong Localization errors (W; white) were significantly decreased as a result of multisensory integration, but only No-Go errors were significantly reduced as a result of unisensory integration. C, The differential effect of multisensory and unisensory integration was reasonably constant, regardless of the effectiveness of the best component stimulus and both showed an inverse relationship, wherein benefits were greatest when the effectiveness of the component stimuli was lowest. V, Visual; A, auditory; C, correct.