Publications

*   All  PDFs are intended for private use only.  Do not distribute.   *

2023

• • Shams, L. T.*, Föry, A.*, Sharma, A. Shams, L. (2023). Big number, big body: Jersey numbers alter body size perception. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287474 . Impact factor 3.75
    • • • • * denotes co-first-authorship
        • This study has been covered by more than 70 media outlets including the following: ABC news, ESPN TV, Good Morning America, HealthDay, KNX, KTLA, LA Times, NBC news, New Scientist, NPR, Science Friday, US News. 
•  
  • Seitz, A. R., Sekuler, A., Dosher, B., Wright, B. A., Huang, C.-B., Shawn Green, C., Pack, C. C., Sagi, D., Levi, D., Tadin, D., Quinlan, E., Jiang, F., Diaz, G. J., Ghose, G., Fiser, J., Banai, K., Visscher, K., Huxlin, K., Shams, L., … Kourtzi, Z. (2023). Perceptual Learning: Policy Insights From Basic Research to Real-World Applications. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(2), 324-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322231195268. Impact factor 0.85
•  
  • Glicksohn, A., Shams, L., Seitz, A. (2023). Improving memory for unusual events with wakeful reactivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1092408. Impact factor 4.23
•  

  • Lin, C., Mottaghi, S. Shams, L. (2023). Effects of color and saturation in natural images on aesthetic pleasure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02357-4 Impact factor 4.41                                                                                                                                                                                                                          – featured by PB&R

  • Lin, C., Shams, L. (2023). The box-circle illusion. Perception. 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066231186557. Impact factor 1.695                                                                                             – covered by Psychology Today

  • Murray, C. A., & Shams, L. (2023). Crossmodal interactions in human learning and memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Vol. 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1181760. Impact factor 3.47

2022

• • Quintero*, S. I., Shams*,  L., & Kamal, K. (2022). Changing the Tendency to Integrate the Senses.  Brain Sciences, 12(10), 1384. MDPI AG. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12101384. Impact Factor: 3.33.                                   * denotes co-first-authorship
•  
  • Lin, C., Yeh, M., Shams, L. (2022). Subliminal audio-visual temporal congruency in music videos enhances perceptual pleasure.  Neuroscience letters, 136623. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2022.136623. Impact Factor: 3.05
•  
  • Shams, L., Beierholm, U. (2022),  Bayesian Causal Inference: A unifying neuroscience theory. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. Impact Factor: 8.99
•  
  • Murray, C. A., Tarlow, M., Rissman, J., & Shams, L. (2022). Multisensory encoding of names via name tags facilitates remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(6), 1277–1291. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4012. Impact Factor: 2.36

2021

• • Chau, E., Murray, C. A., Shams, L. (2021). Hierarchical drift diffusion modeling uncovers multisensory benefit in numerosity discrimination tasks.  PeerJ, 9:e12273, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12273. Impact factor: 2.98 

2020

• • Hirst, R. J., McGovern, D. P., Setti, A., Shams, L., Newell, F. N. (2020). What you see is what you hear: 20 years of research using the Sound-induced flash illusion. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. Vol. 118, pp. 759-774. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7m586. Impact factor: 8.33
•  
  • Murray, C. A., Glicksohn, A.,  Lelo de Larrea-Mancera, E. S., Shams, L., Seitz, A. (2020). Revealing multisensory benefit with diffusion modeling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 99, 102449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102449. Impact factor: 2.18

2019

• • Kroll, M. W., Ritter, M. B., Perkins, P. E., Shams, L., Andrews, C. J. (2019). Perceived electrical injury: Misleading symptomology due to multisensory stimuli. Journal of Emergency Medicine. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2019.01.013. Impact factor: 1.21
•  
  • Samad, M., Ralph-Nearman, C., Hellemann, G., Khalsa, S.,Shams, L., Feusner, J. (2019). Disturbed eating and body dysmorphic symptoms in a young adult sample are separable constructs that each show a mixture of distributions. Assessment. 1-9. doi:10.1177/1073191119879241. Impact factor: 3.19 
•  
  • Ursino, M. Cuppini, C., Mogosso, E., Beierholm, U., Shams, L. (2019). Explaining the effect of likelihood manipulation and prior through a neural network of audiovisual perception of space. Multisensory Research. doi: 10.1163/22134808-20191324. Impact factor: 2.39

2018

• • Peters, M., Zhang, L., & Shams, L. (2018). The material-weight illusion is a Bayes-optimal percept under competing density priors. PeerJ, 6:e5760. doi:10.7717/peerj.5760. Impact factor: 2.18
    
•  
  • Kroll, M., Ritter, M. B., Perkins, P. E., Shams, L., & Andrews, C. (2018). Perceived electrical shock and Bayesian inference with multisensory stimuli. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2018.07.042. Impact factor: 1.70 
•  
  • Odegaard, B., Beierholm, U., Carpenter, J., & Shams, L. (2018). Prior expectation of objects in space is dependent on the direction of gaze. Cognition. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.011. Impact factor: 3.35
•  

  • Samad, M., & Shams, L. (2018). Recalibrating the body: Visuotactile ventriloquism aftereffect. PeerJ, 6:e4584. doi:10.7717/peerj.4504. Impact factor: 2.18

2017 

• • Silva, A. E., Barakat, B. K., Jimenez, L. O., & Shams, L. (2017). Multisensory congruency enhances explicit awareness in a sequence learning task. Multisensory Research. doi:10.1163/22134808-00002587. Impact factor: 1.04
•  
  • Odegaard, B., & Shams, L. (2017). The relationship between audiovisual binding tendencies and prodromal features of schizophrenia in the general population. Clinical Psychological Science, 5(4), 733-741. doi:10.1177/2167702617704014. Impact factor: 5.83
•  
  • Frane, A. V., & Shams, L. (2017). Effects of tempo, swing density, and listener’s drumming experience, on swing detection thresholds for drum rhythms [published version available at http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/141/6/10.1121/1.4984285]. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 141(6), 4200-4208. doi:10.1121/1.4984285. Impact Factor: 1.57
•  
  • Odegaard, B., Wozny, D., & Shams, L. (2017). A simple and efficient method for enhancing the tendency to bind the senses. PeerJ, 5, e3143. doi:10.7717/peerj.3143. Impact Factor: 2.18
•  
  • Cuppini, C., Shams, L., Magosso, E., & Ursino, M. (2017). A biologically inspired neurocomputational model for audio-visual integration and causal inference. European Journal of Neuroscience, 46(9), 2481-2498. doi:10.1111/ejn.13725. Impact factor: 3.75

  2016

  • Vinsen, D. W., Abney, D. H., Amso, D., Chemero, A., Cutting, J. E., Dale, R., Freeman, J. B., Feldman, L. B., Friston, K. J., Gallagher, S., Jordan, J. S., Mudrik, L., Ondobaka, S., Richardson, D. C., Shams, L., Shiffrar, M., & Spivey, M. J. (2016). Perception, as you make it. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e260. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15002678. Impact Factor: 20.77
•  
  • Knotts, J., & Shams, L. (2016). Clarifying signal detection theoretic interpretations of the Müller-Lyer and sound-induced flash illusions. Journal of Vision, 16(11): 18, 1-4, doi:10.1167/16.11.18. Impact Factor: 2.39
    
    
  • Peters, M. A. K., Ma, W. J., & Shams, L. (2016). The size-weight illusion is not anti-Bayesian afterall: A unifying Bayesian account. PeerJ, 4, e2124. doi:10.7717/peerj.2124. Impact Factor: 2.11
•  
  • Frane, A. V., & Shams, L. (2016). Clarifying some findings regarding the ventriloquist aftereffect [published version available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00221-015-4409-3]. Experimental Brain Research, 234(3), 931-932. doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4409-3. Impact Factor: 2.40
•  
  • Odegaard, B., Wozny, D., & Shams, L. (2016). The effects of selective and divided attention on sensory precision and integration. Neuroscience Letters, 614, 24-28. http://doi.org/1016/j.neulet.2015.12.039. Impact Factor: 2.03
•  
  • Samad, M., & Shams, L. (2016). Visual-somatotopic interactions in spatial perception. NeuroReport, 27(3), 180-185. Impact Factor: 1.52
•  
  • Odegaard, B., & Shams, L. (2016). The brain’s tendency to bind audiovisual signals is stable but not general. Psychological Science, 27(4), 583-591. doi:10.1177/0956797616628860. Impact Factor: 4.43
    • Press release on this study 

• 2015

  • Peters, M. A. K., Balzer, J., & Shams, L. (2015). Smaller = denser, and the brain knows it: Natural statistics of object density shape weight expectations. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0119794. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119794. Impact Factor: 3.23
•  
  • Samad, M., Chung, A., & Shams, L. (2015). Perception of body ownership is driven by Bayesian sensory inference. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117178. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117178. Impact Factor: 3.23
•  
  • Kayser, C, & Shams, L. (2015). Multisensory causal Inference in the brain. PLoS Biology, 13(2), e1002075. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002075. Impact Factor: 9.34
•  
  • Barakat, B. K., Seitz, A. R., & Shams, L. (2015). Visual rhythm perception improves through auditory but not visual training. Current Biology, 25(2), 60-61. Impact Factor: 9.57
•  
  • Odegaard, B., Wozny, D., & Shams, L. (2015). Biases in visual, auditory, and audiovisual perception of space. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(12), e1004649. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004649. Impact Factor: 4.62 
    • Press release on this study

  2013

  • Peters, M. A. K., Thompson, B., Merabet, L. B., Wu, A. D., & Shams, L. (2013). Anodal tDCS to V1 blocks visual perceptual learning consolidation. Neuropsychologia, 51(7), 1234-1239. Impact Factor: 3.30
    
•  
  • Moran, Z. D., Bachman, P. M., Cannon, T. D., Pham, P., & Shams, L. (2013) Multisensory encoding improves auditory recognition. Multisensory Research, 26(6), 581-592. Impact Factor: 0.78
•  
  • Barakat, B. K., Seitz, A. R., & Shams, L. (2013). The effect of statistical learning on internal stimulus representations: Predictable items are enhanced even when not predicted. Cognition, 129, 205-211. Impact Factor: 3.63

2011

• • Wozny, D. R., & Shams, L. (2011). Recalibration of auditory space following milliseconds of cross-modal discrepancy. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(12), 4607-4612. Impact Factor: 6.34
•  
  • Wozny, D., & Shams, L. (2011). Computational characterization of visually-induced auditory spatial adaptation. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5(75), 1-11. doi:10.3389/fnint.2011.00075. Impact Factor: 5.38
•  
  • Shams, L., & Beierholm, U. (2011). Humans’ multisensory perception, from integration to segregation, follows Bayesian inference. In Trommershauser, J., Kording, K., Landy, M. (Editors), Sensory Cue Integration. Oxford University Press, pp. 251-262.
•  
  • Kim, R., Peters, M. A. K., & Shams, L. (2011). 0 + 1 > 1: How adding noninformative sound improves performance on a visual task. Psychological Science, 23(1), 6-12. doi:10.1177/0956797611420662. Impact Factor: 4.43
•  
  • Shams, L. (2011). Early integration and Bayesian causal inference in multisensory perception. In Murray, M., Wallace, M. (Editors), Frontiers in the Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes. CRC Press, pp. 217-231.
•  

  • Shams, L., Wozny, D. R., Kim, R., & Seitz, A. (2011). Influences of multi-sensory experience on subsequent unisensory processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 264. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00264. Impact Factor: 2.80

2010

• Shams, L. (2010). Multimodal interactions: Visual–auditory. In Goldstein, B. (Editor), Encyclopedia of perception. Sage Publications.
  • Shams, L., & Kim, R. (2010). Bayesian priors and multisensory integration at multiple levels of visual processing: Reply to comments on “Crossmodal influences on visual perception”. Physics of Life Reviews, 7, 295-298. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.07.006. Impact Factor: 7.48
  • Shams, L., & Beierholm, U. (2010). Causal inference in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 425-432. Impact Factor: 21.97
  • Wozny, D., Beierholm, U., & Shams, L. (2010). Probability matching as a computational strategy used in perception. PLoS Computational Biology, 6(8), e1000871. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000871. Impact Factor: 4.62
  • Shams, L., & Kim, R. (2010). Crossmodal influences on visual perception. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(3), 269-284. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.04.006. Impact Factor: 7.48
  • Stein, B., Burr, D., Constantinidis, C., Laurienti, P., Meredith, M., Perrault, T., Ramachandran, R., Röder, B., Rowland, B., Sathian, K., Schroeder, C., Shams, L., Stanford, T., Wallace, M., Yu, L., & Lewkowicz, D. (2010). Semantic confusion regarding the development of multisensory integration: A practical solution. European Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 1713-1720. Impact Factor: 3.18
  • Keane, B., Rosenthal, O., Chun, N., & Shams, L. (2010). Audiovisual integration in high functioning adults with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 276-289. Impact Factor: 2.96

2009

• Jacobs, R., & Shams, L. (2009). Visual learning in multisensory environments. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(2), 217-225. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01056.x. Impact Factor: 3.06
  • Rosenthal, O., Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2009). Sound-induced flash illusion is resistant to feedback training. Brain Topography, 21, 185-192. Impact Factor: 3.47 
  • Beierholm, U., Quartz, S., & Shams, L. (2009). Bayesian priors are encoded independently from likelihoods in human multisensory perception. Journal of Vision, 9(5), 23. doi:10.1167/9.5.23. Impact Factor: 2.39
  • Falconbridge, M., Wozny, D., Shams, L., & Engel, S. (2009). Adapting to altered image statistics using processed video. Vision Research, 49(14), 1757-64. Impact Factor: 1.82
  • Kim, R., Seitz, A., Feenstra, H., & Shams, L. (2009). Testing assumptions of statistical learning: Is it implicit and long-term? Neuroscience Letters, 461, 145-149. Impact Factor: 2.03 
  • Kim, R., & Shams, L. (2009, March 24). What can magicians teach us about the brain? Scientific American, Mind Matters. Impact Factor: 2.47
  • Natarajan, R., Murray, I., Shams, L., & Zemel, R. (2009). Characterizing response behavior in multisensory perception with conflicting cues. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 21, 1153-1160. 
  • Shams, L. (2009) Crossmodal sensory integration. In P. Wilkens, T. Bayne, & A. Cleeremans. (Eds.), Oxford companion to consciousness. Oxford University Press, pp. 211-212.

2008

• Beierholm, U., Kording, K., Shams, L., & Ma, W. J. (2008). Comparing Bayesian models of multisensory cue combination without mandatory integration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 20, 81-88. 
  • Shams, L., & Seitz, A. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411-417. Impact Factor: 21.97 
  • Wozny, D. R., Beierholm, U. R., & Shams, L. (2008). Human trimodal perception follows optimal statistical inference. Journal of Vision, 8(3), 24. doi:10.1167/8.3.24. Impact Factor: 2.39 
  • Kim, R. S., Seitz, A. R., & Shams L. (2008). Benefits of stimulus congruency for multisensory facilitation of visual learning. PLoS ONE, 3(1), e1532. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001532. Impact Factor: 3.23 
  • van Wassenhove, V., Buonomano, D. V., Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2008). Distortions of subjective time perception within and across senses. PLoS ONE, 3(1), e1437. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001437. Impact Factor: 3.23

2007

• Newell, F., & Shams, L. (2007). New insights into multisensory perception. Perception, 36(10), 1415-1418. [Guest editiorial in special issue on advances in multisensory research]. Impact Factor: 0.91
  • Seitz, A. R., Kim, R., van Wassenhove, V., & Shams, L. (2007). Simultaneous and independent acquisition of multisensory and unisensory associations. Perception, 36(10), 1445-53. Impact Factor: 0.91 
  • Kording, K. P., Beierholm, U., Ma, W. J., Quartz, S., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Shams L. (2007). Causal inference in multisensory perception. PLoS ONE, 2(9), e943. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000943. Impact Factor: 3.23 
  • Watkins, S., Shams, L., Josephs, O., & Rees, G. (2007). Activity in human V1 follows multisensory perception. NeuroImage, 37, 572-578. Impact Factor: 6.36

2006

• Seitz, A. R., Kim, R., & Shams, L. (2006). Sound facilitates visual learning. Current Biology, 16(14), 1422-1427. Impact Factor: 9.57
  • Watkins, S., Shams, L., Tanaka, S., Haynes, J.-D., & Rees, G. (2006). Sound alters activity in human V1 in association with illusory visual perception. NeuroImage, 31(3), 1247-1256. Impact Factor: 6.36

2005

• Shams, L., Ma, W.J., & Beierholm, U. (2005). Sound-induced flash illusion as an optimal percept. Neuroreport, 16(17), 1923-1927. Impact Factor: 1.52 
  • Violentyev, A., Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2005). Touch-induced visual illusion. Neuroreport, 16(10), 1107-1110. Impact Factor: 1.52
  • Shams, L., Iwaki, S., Chawla, A., & Bhattacharya, J. (2005). Early modulation of visual cortex by sound: An MEG study. Neuroscience Letters, 378(2), 76-81. Impact Factor: 2.03

2002 – 2004

• Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S., (2004). Modulations of visual percepion by sound. In Calvert, G., Spence, C., & Stein, B. E. (Editors), Handbook of Multisensory Processes. MIT Press, pp. 27-34.
  • Bhattacharya, J., Shams, L., & Shimojo, S. (2002). Sound-induced illusory flash perception: Role of gamma band responses. NeuroReport, 13, 1727-1730. Impact Factor: 1.52
  • Shams, L., & von der Malsburg, C. (2002). The role of complex cells in object recognition.  Vision Research, 42(22), 2547-2554. Impact Factor: 1.82 
  • Shams, L., & von der Malsburg, C. (2002). Acquisition of visual shape primitives. Vision Research, 42(17), 2105-2122. Impact Factor: 1.82
  • Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2002). Visual illusion induced by sound. Cognitive Brain Research, 14, 147-152. Impact Factor: 3.77 
  • Shams, L. (2002, October 1). Integration in the brain: The subconscious alteration of visual perception by cross-modal integration. Science & Consciousness Review.

2001 and earlier

• Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., Thompson, S., & Shimojo, S. (2001). Sound alters visual evoked potentials in humans. NeuroReport, 12(17), 3849-3852. Impact Factor: 1.52 
  • Shimojo, S., & Shams, L.  (2001). Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11(4), 505-509. Impact Factor: 6.63 
  • Shimojo, S., Scheier, C., Nijhawan, R., Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Watanabe, K.  (2001). Beyond perceptual modality: Auditory effects on visual perception. Acoustical Science and Technology, 22(2), 61-67. Impact Factor: 0.83
  • Shams, L., Brady, M., & Schaal, S. (2001). Graph-matching vs. entropy-based methods for object detection. Neural Networks, 14, 345-354. Impact Factor: 2.71
  • Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408, 788. Impact Factor: 41.46 
  • Shams, L., & von der Malsburg, C.  (1999). Are object shape primitives learnable?   NeuroComputing, 26-27, 855-863. Impact Factor: 1.82 
  • Shams, L., & Fiser, J. (1998). A model for development of cortical lateral connectivities using motion information. In J. Bower (Ed.), Computational NeuroScience: Trends in Research (pp. 515-518). New York, NY: Plenum Press.