A sound can cause 2 visual streaming objects appear to bounce (the audiovisual bounce-inducing effect, ABE). Here we examined whether the stream/bounce percept affects perception of audiovisual synchrony. Participants saw 2 disks that either clearly streamed, clearly bounced, or were ambiguous, and heard a sound around the point of contact (POC). They reported, on each trial, whether they perceived the disks to ‘stream’ or ‘bounce’, and whether the sound was ‘synchronous’ or ‘asynchronous’ with the POC. Results showed that the optimal time of the sound to induce a bounce was before the POC (−59 msec), whereas audiovisual synchrony was maximal when the sound came after the POC (+16 msec). The range of temporal asynchronies perceived as ‘synchronous’, the temporal binding window (TBW), was wider when disks were perceived as bouncing than streaming, with no difference between ambiguous and non-ambiguous visual displays. These results demonstrate 1) that causality differs from synchrony, 2) that causality widens the TBW, and 3) that the ABE is perceptually real.

声音可能会导致2个视觉流对象出现反弹（视听反弹诱发效果，ABE）。在这里，我们检查了流/跳动感知是否会影响视听同步的感知。与会者看到2张清晰地流过，清晰地弹开或模糊的磁盘，并且在接触点（POC）周围听到了声音。他们在每次试验中报告了他们是否感觉到磁盘“流”或“弹跳”，以及声音与POC是“同步”还是“异步”。结果表明，声音引起反弹的最佳时间是在POC之前（-59毫秒），而当声音在POC之后（+16毫秒）时，视听同步最大。当磁盘被视为跳动而不是流传输时，被视为“同步”的时间异步窗口（TBW）的范围更宽，在模糊和非模糊视觉显示之间没有区别。这些结果表明：1）因果关系不同于同步性； 2）因果关系扩大了TBW； 3）ABE在感知上是真实的。