Table 1.
Summary of the unity effect demonstrated in studies of the spatial ventriloquism effect.
| Study | Origins of the unityassumption | Stimuli | Experimental paradigm | Effect? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson, 1953 | Semantic congruency, redundant information (temporal structure) | Kettle and whistle vs. light and bell | Spatial ventriloquism | Yes |
| Warren et al., 1981 | Instruction, redundant information (temporal synchrony), and semantic congruency | Human face and voice vs. tape mark and voice (Experiment 1) | Spatial ventriloquism (Experiment 1) | Yes, but only when the stimuli were synchronous and semantically congruent |
| Human face/spot and voice/click (Experiment 4) | Spatial discrimination (Experiment 4) | |||
| Wallace et al., 2004 | Redundant information (spatial and temporal coincidence) | Light and white noise | Spatial ventriloquism | Yes |
| Parise and Spence, 2009 | Crossmodal correspondence (size and pitch) | Visual disk and pure tone | Spatial discrimination | Yes |
| Kanaya and Yokosawa, 2011 | Semantic congruency | Human speech | Spatial ventriloquism | Yes |
| Wozny and Shams, 2011 | Context | Visual white-noise disk and auditory white-noise burst | Auditory spatial realignment | Yes |
| Radeau and Bertelson, 1977 | Semantic congruency | Human speech or playing bongos (full video vs. synchronized light) | Spatial ventriloquism aftereffect | No |
| Radeau and Bertelson, 1978 | Semantic congruency, instruction | Playing bongos (full video vs. synchronized light) | Spatial ventriloquism aftereffect | No |
| Colin et al., 2001 | Semantic congruency | Human speech | Spatial ventriloquism | No |