Literature DB >> 19803638

Auditory and visual capture during focused visual attention.

Thomas Koelewijn1, Adelbert Bronkhorst, Jan Theeuwes.   

Abstract

It is well known that auditory and visual onsets presented at a particular location can capture a person's visual attention. However, the question of whether such attentional capture disappears when attention is focused endogenously beforehand has not yet been answered. Moreover, previous studies have not differentiated between capture by onsets presented at a nontarget (invalid) location and possible performance benefits occurring when the target location is (validly) cued. In this study, the authors modulated the degree of attentional focus by presenting endogenous cues with varying reliability and by displaying placeholders indicating the precise areas where the target stimuli could occur. By using not only valid and invalid exogenous cues but also neutral cues that provide temporal but no spatial information, they found performance benefits as well as costs when attention is not strongly focused. The benefits disappear when the attentional focus is increased. These results indicate that there is bottom-up capture of visual attention by irrelevant auditory and visual stimuli that cannot be suppressed by top-down attentional control. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19803638     DOI: 10.1037/a0013901

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  13 in total

1.  Bottom-up effects modulate saccadic latencies in well-known eye movement paradigm.

Authors:  Saskia van Stockum; Michael R Macaskill; Tim J Anderson
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-08-21

2.  Competition between auditory and visual spatial cues during visual task performance.

Authors:  Thomas Koelewijn; Adelbert Bronkhorst; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 3.  The multifaceted interplay between attention and multisensory integration.

Authors:  Durk Talsma; Daniel Senkowski; Salvador Soto-Faraco; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 4.  A multisensory perspective of working memory.

Authors:  Michel Quak; Raquel Elea London; Durk Talsma
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 3.169

5.  Human Pupillary Dilation Response to Deviant Auditory Stimuli: Effects of Stimulus Properties and Voluntary Attention.

Authors:  Hsin-I Liao; Makoto Yoneya; Shunsuke Kidani; Makio Kashino; Shigeto Furukawa
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 4.677

6.  Attentional reorienting triggers spatial asymmetries in a search task with cross-modal spatial cueing.

Authors:  Rebecca E Paladini; Lorenzo Diana; Giuseppe A Zito; Thomas Nyffeler; Patric Wyss; Urs P Mosimann; René M Müri; Tobias Nef; Dario Cazzoli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Salient distractors can induce saccade adaptation.

Authors:  Afsheen Khan; Sally A McFadden; Mark Harwood; Josh Wallman
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 1.909

8.  Looking to Learn: The Effects of Visual Guidance on Observational Learning of the Golf Swing.

Authors:  Giorgia D'Innocenzo; Claudia C Gonzalez; A Mark Williams; Daniel T Bishop
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Distractors associated with reward break through the focus of attention.

Authors:  Jaap Munneke; Artem V Belopolsky; Jan Theeuwes
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.199

10.  A functional MRI investigation of crossmodal interference in an audiovisual Stroop task.

Authors:  Megan C Fitzhugh; Peter S Whitehead; Lisa Johnson; Julia M Cai; Leslie C Baxter; Corianne Rogalsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.