Revision 7T · Full Tutorial Edition · Updated 1 September 2026
PWR-088 · SELF GUIDED full tutorial
Compare vision-only, touch-only and combined cues on the same safe object task
Multisensory integration is how information from more than one sense is combined. Extra cues can help, do nothing or conflict. This lesson tests the same benign object judgement under vision-only, touch-only and combined conditions, keeping time and answer options fixed. The learner records which cue mattered and whether the combination beats the best single cue.
What you will produceThe learner completes 18 balanced object trials and correctly reports whether combined cues improve, match or reduce accuracy relative to the best single-cue condition.
Full step-by-step individual tutorial · TLU-PWR-088
The learner completes 18 balanced object trials and correctly reports whether combined cues improve, match or reduce accuracy relative to the best single-cue condition.
Compare harmless familiar objects while seated using ordinary sight and touch.
Keep glasses, hearing aids, mobility aids and preferred sensory supports.
Qualified help is required for
Assessment or treatment of sensory-processing, vestibular, neurological or developmental concerns.
Tasks involving motion, falls, driving, clinical illusions or sensory overload.
Never do this from the page alone
Remove an aid, provoke dizziness, use flashing or loud stimuli, or claim a clinical integration disorder from this task.
Assume more cues must improve performance.
2 · Get ready
Gather what you need and check the starting conditions
What you need
Six clean, blunt, lightweight objects or shapes that can be seen and touched safely.
A tabletop screen, numbered answer options, timer and randomised condition list.
A record for accuracy, time, confidence, cue used and discomfort.
Before you start
Inspect objects and confirm the seated setup allows safe touch without reaching or dropping.
Choose one fixed question, such as which of six shapes is present, and a ten-second observation limit.
Check lighting, visual access and tactile access; retain normal aids.
3 · The method
Follow these steps in order
Fix one judgement
Choose six objects and one answer set. Ask the identical identity or shape question in every condition.
Why: Different questions would confound sensory condition with task difficulty.
Check: The same six answer labels apply to all trials.
Define three conditions
Set vision-only with no touch, touch-only behind a screen while seated, and combined vision-plus-touch. Keep the ten-second limit.
Why: Explicit conditions make cue contribution observable.
Check: Each condition has a written access rule and equal time.
Balance and randomise
Prepare six trials per condition in a mixed order, with every object appearing equally often.
Why: A mixed balanced schedule reduces learning and order effects.
Check: The list contains 18 trials and no condition or object dominates.
Respond and name the cue
After each trial, choose an answer, confidence and the feature used, such as outline, texture or both.
Why: Cue reports show whether the learner actually used both streams or ignored one.
Check: Every response includes answer, confidence and named cue before feedback.
Reveal and repair conflict
Check the key. When cues conflict or the combined trial is wrong, identify which cue was misleading and what reliability check could help next time.
Why: Integration includes down-weighting an unreliable cue, not merely adding information.
Check: The repair names the misleading cue and a concrete check.
Compare conditions
Calculate accuracy and median time for each condition. Compare combined performance with the better single condition, then repeat later with two unfamiliar safe objects.
Why: The best single-cue comparison reveals benefit, neutrality or interference.
Check: The conclusion says helps, matches or hurts for this task and includes novel-item results.
4 · Worked example
See the whole method used once
Scenario
Six foam shapes include a circle, oval, square, rectangle, triangle and five-point star.
Walkthrough
Jo fixes a six-label answer card and ten-second observation rule.
A helper mixes six vision-only, six touch-only and six combined trials.
On a combined oval trial Jo answers circle, 80%, saying sight dominated while touch felt elongated.
After reveal, Jo writes “compare longest and shortest span before answering” as the conflict repair.
Scores are vision 5/6, touch 4/6 and combined 4/6, so extra touch did not beat the best single cue.
Result
Jo correctly reports combined interference in this small shape task and identifies an unreliable-cue repair. The outcome does not show a sensory disorder or a general cost of multisensory information.
5 · Right and wrong
Compare correct or safer execution with the common wrong version
Right and wrong comparison
Moment
Right / safer
Wrong / riskier
Why it matters
Task control
Ask the same question with the same objects and time in all conditions.
Use easy objects for combined trials and hard objects for touch-only.
Difficulty differences would masquerade as integration effects.
Aids
Keep ordinary visual and tactile supports and record them.
Remove glasses or normal aids to make a pure test.
Removing access supports changes the person and can create avoidable burden.
Combined result
Compare combined accuracy with the better single cue.
Assume any combined score is an improvement.
Extra information can be redundant or conflicting.
Conflict
Identify which cue was less reliable on that trial.
Average cues blindly or blame the learner.
Useful integration weights evidence by reliability and task relevance.
6 · Common mistakes
Spot the error and apply the correction
Common mistakes and corrections
Mistake
Fix
Condition blocks are always in the same order.
Mix conditions with a prepared random schedule.
Objects make sound only in touch trials.
Place and handle objects quietly or record sound as an extra cue.
Combined time is longer.
Use the same observation limit in all three conditions.
Confidence is reported as performance.
Calculate correct answers and time separately from confidence.
7 · Practice
Turn the steps into a usable skill
First session
Inspect six objects and practise each access rule once.
Run 18 mixed trials with immediate feedback.
Calculate three condition scores.
Repair the largest cue-conflict error.
Stop after the calculation rather than adding sensory intensity.
Repeat plan
Repeat once after 48 hours with the same timing but two replaced objects. A third session may change one feature only, such as visual blur inherent in the object, not the learner’s aids. Keep sessions under 25 minutes.
Progress when
Condition rules and timing stay fixed.
The learner can identify the cue that drove each error.
The helps/matches/hurts conclusion is reproduced or honestly revised on new objects.
Do not progress when
Touch-only reaching is unsafe or uncomfortable.
Visual blocking, texture or repetition causes sensory distress.
The goal shifts to diagnosis, motion exposure or removal of needed aids.
8 · Check the result
Measure what changed
Accuracy difference between combined and best single-cue conditions.
How: For each condition, report correct out of six, median time, median confidence and errors by object; subtract best single accuracy from combined accuracy and inspect unfamiliar items separately.
Good result: All 18 trials follow the declared rules, the learner states the correct helps/matches/hurts relationship and uses one cue-reliability repair on a later set.
This does not prove: It does not diagnose sensory integration, establish durable everyday benefit or imply generally heightened senses.
Self-check
Is the question identical in all three conditions?
Did every object appear equally often?
Is combined performance compared with the best single cue?
Can you name a trial where one cue misled the answer?
9 · Stop, adapt or get help
Keep the safety boundary practical
Stop and get help
Stop for dizziness, headache, eye strain, nausea, pain, sensory overload or marked distress.
Stop if blocking vision makes object handling unsafe; switch to a card or helper-controlled version.
Seek appropriate professional assessment for new sensory conflict, balance problems or functional change rather than repeating the task.
Accessibility and adaptations
Use enlarged objects, high contrast, tactile markers or extended equal time across all conditions.
A helper may present objects within comfortable reach and record spoken answers without cueing.
If one modality is unavailable, compare two accessible cue configurations and state that the task is different.
10 · Evidence and limits
Why these instructions are here
primary research
Perceptual training narrowed an audiovisual temporal binding window in younger and older adults, but age-related cue expectations did not change uniformly.
Progress is saved only in this browser on this device.
Step-by-step learner mode
Each activity includes its success check, a nearby accessible alternative and an “I’m stuck” correction path. Alternatives preserve the target where possible; when they change the task, Titan labels them as related rather than equivalent.
01
Fix one judgement
Choose six objects and one answer set. Ask the identical identity or shape question in every condition.
Why this step exists
Different questions would confound sensory condition with task difficulty.
Success check
The same six answer labels apply to all trials.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Choose six objects and one answer set. Ask the identical identity or shape question in every condition.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Choose six objects and one answer set. Ask the identical identity or shape question in every condition.” does not yet meet this declared check: The same six answer labels apply to all trials.
Correction: Return to the start of “Fix one judgement”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The same six answer labels apply to all trials.”
Stop / get help: Stop for dizziness, headache, eye strain, nausea, pain, sensory overload or marked distress.
02
Define three conditions
Set vision-only with no touch, touch-only behind a screen while seated, and combined vision-plus-touch. Keep the ten-second limit.
Why this step exists
Explicit conditions make cue contribution observable.
Success check
Each condition has a written access rule and equal time.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Set vision-only with no touch, touch-only behind a screen while seated, and combined vision-plus-touch. Keep the ten-second limit.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Objects make sound only in touch trials.
Correction: Place and handle objects quietly or record sound as an extra cue.
Possible snag: Combined time is longer.
Correction: Use the same observation limit in all three conditions.
Stop / get help: Stop for dizziness, headache, eye strain, nausea, pain, sensory overload or marked distress.
03
Balance and randomise
Prepare six trials per condition in a mixed order, with every object appearing equally often.
Why this step exists
A mixed balanced schedule reduces learning and order effects.
Success check
The list contains 18 trials and no condition or object dominates.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Prepare six trials per condition in a mixed order, with every object appearing equally often.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Condition blocks are always in the same order.
Correction: Mix conditions with a prepared random schedule.
Stop / get help: Stop for dizziness, headache, eye strain, nausea, pain, sensory overload or marked distress.
04
Respond and name the cue
After each trial, choose an answer, confidence and the feature used, such as outline, texture or both.
Why this step exists
Cue reports show whether the learner actually used both streams or ignored one.
Success check
Every response includes answer, confidence and named cue before feedback.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “After each trial, choose an answer, confidence and the feature used, such as outline, texture or both.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “After each trial, choose an answer, confidence and the feature used, such as outline, texture or both.” does not yet meet this declared check: Every response includes answer, confidence and named cue before feedback.
Correction: Return to the start of “Respond and name the cue”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “Every response includes answer, confidence and named cue before feedback.”
Stop / get help: Stop for dizziness, headache, eye strain, nausea, pain, sensory overload or marked distress.
05
Reveal and repair conflict
Check the key. When cues conflict or the combined trial is wrong, identify which cue was misleading and what reliability check could help next time.
Why this step exists
Integration includes down-weighting an unreliable cue, not merely adding information.
Success check
The repair names the misleading cue and a concrete check.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Check the key. When cues conflict or the combined trial is wrong, identify which cue was misleading and what reliability check could help next time.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: The result from “Check the key. When cues conflict or the combined trial is wrong, identify which cue was misleading and what reliability check could help next time.” does not yet meet this declared check: The repair names the misleading cue and a concrete check.
Correction: Return to the start of “Reveal and repair conflict”, reduce complexity or pace, and repeat only the part needed to satisfy: “The repair names the misleading cue and a concrete check.”
Stop / get help: Stop for dizziness, headache, eye strain, nausea, pain, sensory overload or marked distress.
06
Compare conditions
Calculate accuracy and median time for each condition. Compare combined performance with the better single condition, then repeat later with two unfamiliar safe objects.
Why this step exists
The best single-cue comparison reveals benefit, neutrality or interference.
Success check
The conclusion says helps, matches or hurts for this task and includes novel-item results.
I’m stuck on this step
Reset: Re-read this authored instruction — “Calculate accuracy and median time for each condition. Compare combined performance with the better single condition, then repeat later with two unfamiliar safe objects.” — and its success check, then attempt only this step.
Possible snag: Confidence is reported as performance.
Correction: Calculate correct answers and time separately from confidence.
Stop / get help: Stop for dizziness, headache, eye strain, nausea, pain, sensory overload or marked distress.
Correct versus incorrect execution
These accessible process diagrams are built from the tutorial’s own right/wrong teaching. They are not anatomical illustrations and do not add technique beyond the canonical tutorial.
Task control — Difficulty differences would masquerade as integration effects.
Correct / safer
Ask the same question with the same objects and time in all conditions.
Wrong / riskier
Use easy objects for combined trials and hard objects for touch-only.
Aids — Removing access supports changes the person and can create avoidable burden.
Correct / safer
Keep ordinary visual and tactile supports and record them.
Wrong / riskier
Remove glasses or normal aids to make a pure test.
Combined result — Extra information can be redundant or conflicting.
Correct / safer
Compare combined accuracy with the better single cue.
Wrong / riskier
Assume any combined score is an improvement.
Conflict — Useful integration weights evidence by reliability and task relevance.
Correct / safer
Identify which cue was less reliable on that trial.
Wrong / riskier
Average cues blindly or blame the learner.
Method-structure checklist
10 of 10 structural checks present
✓ Ordered, Power-specific instructions — present
✓ Every activity has a success check — present
✓ Materials or supplied records are declared — present
✓ Measurement or assessment rule is present — present
✓ Tutorial-specific troubleshooting is present — present
✓ Stopping or escalation boundary is present — present
✓ Every activity has an adjacent alternative — present
✓ Correct-versus-incorrect comparison is present — present
✓ Evidence context is bound to the Power record — present
✓ Planning metadata is present — present
The method-readiness band and presence checklist assess tutorial presentation and are separate from evidence quality for the underlying Power. They are automated editorial aids, not human approval.
Manual editorial sign-off: Pending. This tutorial must not display a human-approved state until an identified editor signs the exact content hash.