Literature DB >> 19738497

Preferential processing of tactile events under conditions of divided attention.

James V M Hanson1, David Whitaker, James Heron.   

Abstract

Differences in transduction and transmission latencies of visual, auditory and tactile events cause corresponding differences in simple reaction time. As reaction time is usually measured in unimodal blocks, it is unclear whether such latency differences also apply when observers monitor multiple sensory channels. We investigate this by comparing reaction time when attention is focused on a single modality, and when attention is divided between multiple modalities. Results show that tactile reaction time is unaffected by dividing attention, whereas visual and auditory reaction times are significantly and asymmetrically increased. These findings show that tactile information is processed preferentially by the nervous system under conditions of divided attention, and suggest that tactile events may be processed preattentively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19738497      PMCID: PMC3364445          DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3283319e25

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroreport        ISSN: 0959-4965            Impact factor:   1.837


  17 in total

1.  PERCEPTION OF TEMPORAL ORDER OF STIMULI DIFFERING IN SENSE MODE AND SIMPLE REACTION TIME.

Authors:  J RUTSCHMANN; R LINK
Journal:  Percept Mot Skills       Date:  1964-04

2.  Simultaneity constancy: detecting events with touch and vision.

Authors:  Vanessa Harrar; Laurence R Harris
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-07-19       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Neural latencies do not explain the auditory and audio-visual flash-lag effect.

Authors:  Roberto Arrighi; David Alais; David Burr
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Separate attentional resources for vision and audition.

Authors:  David Alais; Concetta Morrone; David Burr
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-06-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Response latency of vertebrate hair cells.

Authors:  D P Corey; A J Hudspeth
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 4.033

6.  Spectral sensitivity of human cone photoreceptors.

Authors:  J L Schnapf; T W Kraft; D A Baylor
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1987 Jan 29-Feb 4       Impact factor: 49.962

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.  Origin of eyes and brains.

Authors:  R L Gregory
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1967-01-28       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Interhemispheric transfer time differences related to aging and gender.

Authors:  M A Jeeves; P Moes
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  The effects of cross-modal manipulations of attention on the detection of vibrotactile stimuli in humans.

Authors:  L J Post; C E Chapman
Journal:  Somatosens Mot Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.111

View more
  5 in total

1.  Sensory processes modulate differences in multi-component behavior and cognitive control between childhood and adulthood.

Authors:  Krutika Gohil; Annet Bluschke; Veit Roessner; Ann-Kathrin Stock; Christian Beste
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  Multisensory task demands temporally extend the causal requirement for visual cortex in perception.

Authors:  Matthijs N Oude Lohuis; Jean L Pie; Pietro Marchesi; Jorrit S Montijn; Christiaan P J de Kock; Cyriel M A Pennartz; Umberto Olcese
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 17.694

3.  Taking two to tango: fMRI analysis of improvised joint action with physical contact.

Authors:  Léa A S Chauvigné; Michel Belyk; Steven Brown
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  On the effects of multimodal information integration in multitasking.

Authors:  Ann-Kathrin Stock; Krutika Gohil; René J Huster; Christian Beste
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Barefoot running does not affect simple reaction time: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Nicholas J Snow; Jason F L Blair; Graham Z MacDonald; Jeannette M Byrne; Fabien A Basset
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 2.984

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.