Literature DB >> 14579008

Cross-modal congruency and visual capture in a visual elevation-discrimination task.

Mark Walton1, Charles Spence.   

Abstract

Participants in this experiment were required to discriminate the elevation of visual target stimuli (upper versus lower) presented to either side of fixation, while simultaneously trying to ignore vibrotactile distracters presented independently from the index finger (up) or thumb (lower) of either hand. The participants' hands were occluded from view under an opaque screen while the visual targets were situated directly over the hands above the screen. Participants responded more slowly on this elevation-discrimination task when the vibrotactile distracters were incongruent with the elevation of the visual targets (i.e. a "lower" vibration to the thumb during the presentation of an upper visual target) than when they were congruent (presumably due to the competing responses primed by the target and distracter stimuli on incongruent trials). The vibrotactile distracters had less of an effect on performance when a pair of rubber hands was placed on top of the screen, "holding" the target lights, in a posture consistent with that of the participant. Those participants who agreed most strongly with a statement about feeling the vibrations at the location of the rubber hands in a post-congruency task questionnaire evidenced the greatest reduction in the magnitude of the cross-modal congruency effect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14579008     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1706-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  17 in total

1.  Cross-modal interaction between vision and touch: the role of synesthetic correspondence.

Authors:  G Martino; L E Marks
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.490

2.  Visuo-tactile links in covert exogenous spatial attention remap across changes in unseen hand posture.

Authors:  Steffan Kennett; Charles Spence; Jon Driver
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2002-10

Review 3.  Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach.

Authors:  Angelo Maravita; Charles Spence; Jon Driver
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 10.834

4.  Multisensory representation of limb position in human premotor cortex.

Authors:  Donna M Lloyd; David I Shore; Charles Spence; Gemma A Calvert
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 24.884

5.  Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see.

Authors:  M Botvinick; J Cohen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-02-19       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Functional and dynamic properties of visual peripersonal space.

Authors:  Elisabetta La'davas
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2002-01-01       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 7.  Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance.

Authors:  M I Posner; M J Nissen; R M Klein
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1976-03       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  Left tactile extinction following visual stimulation of a rubber hand.

Authors:  A Farnè; F Pavani; F Meneghello; E Làdavas
Journal:  Brain       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 13.501

9.  Representation of visuotactile space in the split brain.

Authors:  C Spence; A Kingstone; D I Shore; M S Gazzaniga
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-01

10.  Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves.

Authors:  F Pavani; C Spence; J Driver
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2000-09
View more
  10 in total

1.  The contribution of response conflict, multisensory integration, and body-mediated attention to the crossmodal congruency effect.

Authors:  Francesco Marini; Daniele Romano; Angelo Maravita
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Response interference in touch, vision, and crossmodally: beyond the spatial dimension.

Authors:  Frank Mast; Christian Frings; Charles Spence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-04-12       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Investigating the effect of a transparent barrier on the crossmodal congruency effect.

Authors:  Norimichi Kitagawa; Charles Spence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-11-20       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Spatial constraints on visual-tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects.

Authors:  Charles Spence; Francesco Pavani; Jon Driver
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.282

5.  The crossmodal congruency task as a means to obtain an objective behavioral measure in the rubber hand illusion paradigm.

Authors:  Regine Zopf; Greg Savage; Mark A Williams
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 6.  Vision affects tactile target and distractor processing even when space is task-irrelevant.

Authors:  Ann-Katrin Wesslein; Charles Spence; Christian Frings
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-02-06

7.  Attentional Resource Allocation in Visuotactile Processing Depends on the Task, But Optimal Visuotactile Integration Does Not Depend on Attentional Resources.

Authors:  Basil Wahn; Peter König
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2016-03-08

8.  Audition and vision share spatial attentional resources, yet attentional load does not disrupt audiovisual integration.

Authors:  Basil Wahn; Peter König
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-07-29

9.  When irrelevant information helps: Extending the Eriksen-flanker task into a multisensory world.

Authors:  Simon Merz; Christian Frings; Charles Spence
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 10.  Extending the study of visual attention to a multisensory world (Charles W. Eriksen Special Issue).

Authors:  Charles Spence
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 2.199

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.