, 2012). However, individuals differ GSK2118436 price widely with respect to the objective audiovisual asynchrony which they perceive as subjectively synchronous (the Point of Subjective Simultaneity – PSS; Stone et al., 2001). This may depend intrinsically on the time for

neural conduction and processing of signals, which may differ between stimuli and individuals (Arnold et al., 2001; Aschersleben and Prinz, 1995; Halliday and Mingay, 1964; Moutoussis and Zeki, 1997; Stone et al., 2001), though attentional biases may also account for some apparent individual differences in multisensory timing (Spence and Parise, 2010; Spence et al., 2001). Furthermore, even within the same subjects given the same stimuli, different tasks produce uncorrelated estimates of PSS (van Eijk ABT-888 molecular weight et al., 2008) though such variations may depend on strategic variables (García-Pérez and Alcalá-Quintana, 2012; Schneider and Bavelier, 2003; van Eijk et al., 2008). Thus synchronising mechanisms, if they exist (Zeki and Bartels, 1998), may not function perfectly. If there were a single specialised mechanism for multisensory synchronisation, one might expect to find individuals for whom different modalities have been chronically desynchronised following a brain trauma. Loss of acuity for temporal order has been observed following

temporal lobectomy (Sherwin and Efron, 1980), but the lack of selective impairments in temporal processing is inconsistent with the notion of a unitary specialised mechanism underlying timing perception (Wiener et al., 2011). Indeed, there

is only one previously reported case of apparently acquired sensory desynchronisation (Hamilton et al., 2006). Hamilton et al. (2006) described patient AWF who claimed to experience ‘a perceived temporal mismatch’ (Abstract). However they did not specify whether vision actually preceded or lagged audition, and did not formally quantify the temporal mismatch using objective measures, for example by measuring performance across a range of audiovisual asynchronies. Thus to date, evidence that sensory synchronisation can be pathologically impaired rests largely on AWF’s subjective report, which is not very specific. While investigations of synchronisation have typically focused on temporal relationships between PLEKHB2 modalities (e.g., Harris et al., 2008), the multiple-clocks problem also logically applies more generally between different processes. Here we consider two such notional processes, supporting subjective temporal judgements versus those that serve to integrate inputs from different modalities. We ask whether sound and vision are optimally integrated when they are subjectively synchronous. These processes are not logically the same, and evidence from functional brain imaging suggests they are supported by distinct brain mechanisms (Bertini et al., 2010; Miller and D’Esposito, 2005; Stevenson et al., 2010).