Literature DB >> 16777721

Separate attentional resources for vision and audition.

David Alais1, Concetta Morrone, David Burr.   

Abstract

Current models of attention, typically claim that vision and audition are limited by a common attentional resource which means that visual performance should be adversely affected by a concurrent auditory task and vice versa. Here, we test this implication by measuring auditory (pitch) and visual (contrast) thresholds in conjunction with cross-modal secondary tasks and find that no such interference occurs. Visual contrast discrimination thresholds were unaffected by a concurrent chord or pitch discrimination, and pitch-discrimination thresholds were virtually unaffected by a concurrent visual search or contrast discrimination task. However, if the dual tasks were presented within the same modality, thresholds were raised by a factor of between two (for visual discrimination) and four (for auditory discrimination). These results suggest that at least for low-level tasks such as discriminations of pitch and contrast, each sensory modality is under separate attentional control, rather than being limited by a supramodal attentional resource. This has implications for current theories of attention as well as for the use of multi-sensory media for efficient informational transmission.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16777721      PMCID: PMC1560294          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3420

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  49 in total

Review 1.  Visual attention: insights from brain imaging.

Authors:  N Kanwisher; E Wojciulik
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 34.870

2.  Attention activates winner-take-all competition among visual filters.

Authors:  D K Lee; L Itti; C Koch; J Braun
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Modulation of human visual cortex by crossmodal spatial attention.

Authors:  E Macaluso; C D Frith; J Driver
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-08-18       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Directing attention to locations and to sensory modalities: multiple levels of selective processing revealed with PET.

Authors:  E Macaluso; C D Frith; J Driver
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Modality-specific auditory and visual temporal processing deficits.

Authors:  Salvador Soto-Faraco; Charles Spence
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2002-01

Review 6.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain.

Authors:  Maurizio Corbetta; Gordon L Shulman
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 34.870

7.  Head-centred meridian effect on auditory spatial attention orienting.

Authors:  Fabio Ferlazzo; Messandro Couyoumdjian; Tullia Padovani; Marta Olivetti Belardinelli
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2002-07

8.  Color and luminance contrasts attract independent attention.

Authors:  Maria Concetta Morrone; Valentina Denti; Donatella Spinelli
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2002-07-09       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Cross-modal selective attention: on the difficulty of ignoring sounds at the locus of visual attention.

Authors:  C Spence; J Ranson; J Driver
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2000-02

10.  The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality.

Authors:  C Spence; M E Nicholls; J Driver
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-02
View more
  41 in total

1.  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

2.  Perceptual load affects exogenous spatial orienting while working memory load does not.

Authors:  Valerio Santangelo; Paola Finoia; Antonino Raffone; Marta Olivetti Belardinelli; Charles Spence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-09-01       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Integration of auditory and visual information in the recognition of realistic objects.

Authors:  Clara Suied; Nicolas Bonneel; Isabelle Viaud-Delmon
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-12-18       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Multisensory congruency as a mechanism for attentional control over perceptual selection.

Authors:  Raymond van Ee; Jeroen J A van Boxtel; Amanda L Parker; David Alais
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Do color appearance judgments interfere with detection of small threshold stimuli?

Authors:  Darren E Koenig; Heidi J Hofer
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 2.129

6.  The relationship between visual attention and visual working memory encoding: A dissociation between covert and overt orienting.

Authors:  A Caglar Tas; Steven J Luck; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Preferential processing of tactile events under conditions of divided attention.

Authors:  James V M Hanson; David Whitaker; James Heron
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 1.837

Review 8.  Central attention is serial, but midlevel and peripheral attention are parallel-A hypothesis.

Authors:  Benjamin J Tamber-Rosenau; René Marois
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  The source of enhanced cognitive control in bilinguals: evidence from bimodal bilinguals.

Authors:  Karen Emmorey; Gigi Luk; Jennie E Pyers; Ellen Bialystok
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-12

10.  Inhibitory processes relate differently to balance/reaction time dual tasks in young and older adults.

Authors:  David N Mendelson; Mark S Redfern; Robert D Nebes; J Richard Jennings
Journal:  Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn       Date:  2009-06-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.