The present study examines the extent to which temporal and spatial properties of sound modulate visual motion processing in spatial localization tasks. Participants were asked to locate the place at which a moving visual target unexpectedly vanished. Across different tasks, accompanying sounds were factorially varied within subjects as to their onset and offset times and/or positions relative to visual motion. Sound onset had no effect on the localization error. Sound offset was shown to modulate the perceived visual offset location, both for temporal and spatial disparities. This modulation did not conform to attraction toward the timing or location of the sounds but, demonstrably in the case of temporal disparities, to bimodal enhancement instead. Favorable indications to a contextual effect of audiovisual presentations on interspersed visual-only trials were also found. The short sound-leading offset asynchrony had equivalent benefits to audiovisual offset synchrony, suggestive of the involvement of early-level mechanisms, constrained by a temporal window, at these conditions. Yet, we tentatively hypothesize that the whole of the results and how they compare with previous studies requires the contribution of additional mechanisms, including learning-detection of auditory-visual associations and cross-sensory spread of endogenous attention.

Background/Objectives: Digital technologies are increasingly used in audiological as-sessment; however, evidence supporting clinically evaluated mobile tools for temporal auditory processing screening based on Frequency Pattern Test (FPT) and Duration Pattern Test (DPT) paradigms remains limited. This study examined preliminary con-current validity of digital FPT and DPT implementations in the Evollu Hear A4A mobile application against corresponding BAPA-PE reference measures. Methods: Twen-ty-seven adults with normal hearing (20–58 years) completed app-based and BAPA-PE versions of the DPT and FPT. Ten four-stimulus sequences were administered for each test and format, yielding scores from 0 to 10. Paired scores were compared using Wil-coxon signed-rank tests, and concurrent validity was examined using Spearman’s rank-order correlations. Results: Median DPT scores were 8 for both the app-based (IQR = 3) and BAPA-PE (IQR = 2) measures, while median FPT scores were 9 (IQR = 2) for both formats. No statistically significant differences were observed between app-based and BAPA-PE scores for the DPT (Z = −0.650, p = .516) or FPT (Z = −0.408, p = .683). Significant positive correlations were found between formats for both the DPT (ρ = .665, p < .001) and FPT (ρ = .614, p < .001). Conclusions: The app-based DPT and FPT showed significant positive associations with their corresponding BAPA-PE reference measures, providing preliminary evidence of concurrent validity in adults with normal hearing. Further studies involving broader performance ranges and clinical populations should evaluate reliability, screening cut-offs, sensitivity, and specificity.

Background/Objectives: Digital technologies are increasingly used in audiological assessment; however, evidence supporting clinically evaluated mobile tools for temporal auditory processing screening based on Frequency Pattern Test (FPT) and Duration Pattern Test (DPT) paradigms remains limited. This study examined preliminary concurrent validity of digital FPT and DPT implementations in the Evollu Hear A4A mobile application against corresponding measures from the Bateria de Avaliação do Processamento Auditivo para o Português Europeu (BAPA-PE)—Battery for Auditory Processing Assessment in European Portuguese. Methods: Twenty-seven adults with normal hearing (20–58 years) completed app-based and BAPA-PE versions of the DPT and FPT. Ten four-stimulus sequences were administered for each test and format, yielding scores from 0 to 10. Paired scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and concurrent validity was examined using Spearman’s rank-order correlations. Results: Median DPT scores were 8 for both the app-based (IQR = 3) and BAPA-PE (IQR = 2) measures, while median FPT scores were 9 (IQR = 2) for both formats. No statistically significant differences were observed between app-based and BAPA-PE scores for the DPT (Z = −0.650, p = 0.516) or FPT (Z = −0.408, p = 0.683). Significant positive correlations were found between formats for both the DPT (ρ = 0.665, p < 0.001) and FPT (ρ = 0.614, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The app-based DPT and FPT showed significant positive associations with their corresponding BAPA-PE reference measures, providing preliminary evidence of concurrent validity in adults with normal hearing. Further studies involving broader performance ranges and clinical populations should evaluate reliability, screening cut-offs, sensitivity, and specificity.