Literature DB >> 11436735

The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of automatic visual attention.

J Vroomen1, P Bertelson, B de Gelder.   

Abstract

Previously, we showed that the visual bias of auditory sound location, or ventriloquism, does not depend on the direction of deliberate, or endogenous, attention (Bertelson, Vroomen, de Gelder, & Driver, 2000). In the present study, a similar question concerning automatic, or exogenous, attention was examined. The experimental manipulation was based on the fact that exogenous visual attention can be attracted toward a singleton--that is, an item different on some dimension from all other items presented simultaneously. A display was used that consisted of a row of four bright squares with one square, in either the left- or the rightmost position, smaller than the others, serving as the singleton. In Experiment 1, subjects made dichotomous left-right judgments concerning sound bursts, whose successive locations were controlled by a psychophysical staircase procedure and which were presented in synchrony with a display with the singleton either left or right. Results showed that the apparent location of the sound was attracted not toward the singleton, but instead toward the big squares at the opposite end of the display. Experiment 2 was run to check that the singleton effectively attracted exogenous attention. The task was to discriminate target letters presented either on the singleton or on the opposite big square. Performance deteriorated when the target was on the big square opposite the singleton, in comparison with control trials with no singleton, thus showing that the singleton attracted attention away from the target location. In Experiment 3, localization and discrimination trials were mixed randomly so as to control for potential differences in subjects' strategies in the two preceding experiments. Results were as before, showing that the singleton attracted attention, whereas sound localization was shifted away from the singleton. Ventriloquism can thus be dissociated from exogenous visual attention and appears to reflect sensory interactions with little role for the direction of visual spatial attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11436735     DOI: 10.3758/bf03194427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  38 in total

1.  Is cross-modal integration of emotional expressions independent of attentional resources?

Authors:  J Vroomen; J Driver; B de Gelder
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.282

2.  Synchronization with competing visual and auditory rhythms: bouncing ball meets metronome.

Authors:  Michael J Hove; John R Iversen; Allen Zhang; Bruno H Repp
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-05-26

3.  The spread of attention across modalities and space in a multisensory object.

Authors:  Laura Busse; Kenneth C Roberts; Roy E Crist; Daniel H Weissman; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-12-09       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Is the auditory sensory memory sensitive to visual information?

Authors:  Julien Besle; Alexandra Fort; Marie-Hélène Giard
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-07-23       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Visual cues can modulate integration and segregation of objects in auditory scene analysis.

Authors:  Torsten Rahne; Martin Böckmann; Hellmut von Specht; Elyse S Sussman
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-01-27       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Multisensory integration affects ERP components elicited by exogenous cues.

Authors:  Valerio Santangelo; Rob H J Van der Lubbe; Marta Olivetti Belardinelli; Albert Postma
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Attention to touch weakens audiovisual speech integration.

Authors:  Agnès Alsius; Jordi Navarra; Salvador Soto-Faraco
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Modality-specific selective attention attenuates multisensory integration.

Authors:  Jennifer L Mozolic; Christina E Hugenschmidt; Ann M Peiffer; Paul J Laurienti
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Audition dominates vision in duration perception irrespective of salience, attention, and temporal discriminability.

Authors:  Laura Ortega; Emmanuel Guzman-Martinez; Marcia Grabowecky; Satoru Suzuki
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  Neural processing of asynchronous audiovisual speech perception.

Authors:  Ryan A Stevenson; Nicholas A Altieri; Sunah Kim; David B Pisoni; Thomas W James
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-02-15       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.