Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 33 items for

  • Author or Editor: Laurence R. Harris x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
In: Multisensory Research
A Journal of Scientific Research on All Aspects of Multisensory Processing
Editors-in-Chief: Marc Ernst and Laurence R. Harris
2020 Impact Factor: 2,286
5 Year Impact Factor: 2,488

Multisensory Research is an interdisciplinary archival journal covering all aspects of multisensory processing including the control of action, cognition and attention. Research using any approach to increase our understanding of multisensory perceptual, behavioural, neural and computational mechanisms is encouraged. Empirical, neurophysiological, psychophysical, brain imaging, clinical, developmental, mathematical and computational analyses are welcome. Research will also be considered covering multisensory applications such as sensory substitution, crossmodal methods for delivering sensory information or multisensory approaches to robotics and engineering. Short communications and technical notes that draw attention to new developments will be included, as will reviews and commentaries on current issues. Special issues dealing with specific topics will be announced from time to time. Multisensory Research is a continuation of Seeing and Perceiving, and of Spatial Vision.

For more information on the Open Access options, please click here. For the OA Article Publication Charges, please see here.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ("Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals") -- February 2006

Statement of Informed Consent
Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.
Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note.
The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal's instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the published article.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ("Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals") -- February 2006

Conflict-of-Interest Statement
Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ("Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals") -- February 2006
  • Print + Online €1,022.00$1,186.00
  • Print Only €937.00$1,087.00
  • Online only €852.00$988.00
  • For further information, contact your sales manager
In: Vestibular Cognition
In: Vestibular Cognition
In: Vestibular Cognition
In: Vestibular Cognition
In: Vestibular Cognition
In: Vestibular Cognition

We have previously shown that people are more sensitive at detecting asynchrony between a self-generated movement and delayed visual feedback when the perspective of the movement matches the ‘natural view’ suggesting an internal, visual, canonical body representation (Hoover and Harris, ). Is there a similar variation in sensitivity for parts of the body that cannot be seen in a first-person perspective? To test this, participants made movements with their hands and head (viewing their face or the back of their head) under four viewing conditions: (1) the natural (or direct) view, (2) mirror-reversed, (3) inverted, and (4) inverted and mirror-reversed. Participants indicated which of two periods (one with a minimum delay, the other with an added delay of 33–264 ms) was delayed and their sensitivity to delay was calculated. A significant linear trend was found when comparing sensitivity to detect cross-modal asynchrony in the ‘natural’ or ‘direct’ view condition across body parts; where sensitivity was greatest when viewing body parts seen most often (hands), intermediary for viewing body parts that are seen only indirectly (moving head while viewing face), and least for viewing body parts that are never seen at all (moving head while viewing back of the head). Further, dependency on viewpoint was most evident for body parts that are seen most often or indirectly, but not for body parts that are never seen. Results are discussed in terms of a visual representation of the body.

In: Seeing and Perceiving

Proprioceptive precision for elbow matching in the dark is typically within ±2°. Mechanical loading (exercise) or tendon vibration can alter this precision by impacting peripheral mechanisms. Are accuracy and precision also impacted by multisensory task action strategies giving us a clue as to which central resources are involved in arm placement? In three experiments, subjects had their forearms affixed to lightweight paddles hinged sagittally at the elbow joint. Subjects positioned their arms sequentially while trying to keep the first arm still. Subjects used three strategies to place their arms: (1) guided by an indirect visual signal (traffic lights), (2) bisecting two visually guided angles, and (3) unimodal proprioceptive matching to the first arm’s position. Subjects had more difficulty positioning the second arm when matching without light cues (>2.6° from the target) and were most precise when bisecting two light-guided angles (<2.2° from target). Surprisingly, the indirect light cue did not improve accuracy, but only improved the precision of arm placement. We conclude that interaction between visual and proprioceptive guidance strategies result in superior performance even when the visually presented information is indirect in nature.

In: Seeing and Perceiving