Literature DB >> 20431874

Assessing the audiotactile Colavita effect in near and rear space.

Valeria Occelli1, Jess Hartcher O'Brien, Charles Spence, Massimiliano Zampini.   

Abstract

The Colavita effect occurs when participants performing a speeded detection/discrimination task preferentially report the visual component of pairs of audiovisual or visuotactile stimuli. To date, however, researchers have failed to demonstrate an analogous effect for audiotactile stimuli (Hecht and Reiner in Exp Brain Res 193:307-314, 2009). Here, we investigate whether an audiotactile Colavita effect can be demonstrated by manipulating either the physical features of the auditory stimuli presented in frontal (Experiment 1) or rear space (Experiment 3), or the relative and absolute position of auditory and tactile stimuli in frontal (Experiment 2) or rear space (Experiment 3). The participants showed no evidence of responding preferentially to one of the sensory components of the bimodal stimuli when they were presented from a single location in frontal space (Experiment 1). However, a significant audiotactile Colavita effect was demonstrated in Experiments 2 and 3, with participants preferentially reporting the auditory (rather than tactile) stimulus on the bimodal target trials. In Experiment 3, an audiotactile Colavita effect was reported for auditory white noise bursts but not for pure tones and selectively for those stimuli presented from the same (rather than from the opposite) side. Taken together, these results therefore suggest that when a tactile and an auditory stimulus are presented from a single frontal location, participants do not preferentially report one of the two sensory components (Experiment 1). In contrast, when the stimuli are presented from different locations, people preferentially report the auditory component, especially when they are spatially coincident (Experiments 2 and 3). Moreover, for stimuli presented from rear space, the Colavita effect was only observed for auditory stimuli consisting of white noise bursts (but not for pure tones), suggesting that this kind of stimuli are more likely to be bound together with somatosensory stimuli in rear space.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20431874     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-010-2255-x

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


  66 in total

Review 1.  Modular organization of frequency integration in primary auditory cortex.

Authors:  C E Schreiner; H L Read; M L Sutter
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 12.449

2.  Response grouping in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm: models and contamination effects.

Authors:  Rolf Ulrich; Jeff Miller
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Viewing a face (especially one's own face) being touched enhances tactile perception on the face.

Authors:  Andrea Serino; Francesca Pizzoferrato; Elisabetta Làdavas
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2008-05

4.  The costs of monitoring simultaneously two sensory modalities decrease when dividing attention in space.

Authors:  Valerio Santangelo; Sabrina Fagioli; Emiliano Macaluso
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  A human parietal face area contains aligned head-centered visual and tactile maps.

Authors:  Martin I Sereno; Ruey-Song Huang
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2006-09-24       Impact factor: 24.884

6.  Trigeminal somatosensory evoked magnetic fields to tactile stimulation.

Authors:  P Nevalainen; R Ramstad; E Isotalo; M-L Haapanen; L Lauronen
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Multisensory temporal order judgments: the role of hemispheric redundancy.

Authors:  Massimiliano Zampini; David I Shore; Charles Spence
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 2.997

8.  Semantic congruency and the Colavita visual dominance effect.

Authors:  Camille Koppen; Agnès Alsius; Charles Spence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-09-19       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Early, low-level auditory-somatosensory multisensory interactions impact reaction time speed.

Authors:  Holger F Sperdin; Céline Cappe; John J Foxe; Micah M Murray
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2009-03-11

10.  Looking for myself: current multisensory input alters self-face recognition.

Authors:  Manos Tsakiris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  7 in total

1.  Audiotactile interactions beyond the space and body parts around the head.

Authors:  Wataru Teramoto; Yukiomi Nozoe; Kaoru Sekiyama
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 2.  Neural mechanisms of selective attention in the somatosensory system.

Authors:  Manuel Gomez-Ramirez; Kristjana Hysaj; Ernst Niebur
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-22       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Dynamic characteristics of multisensory facilitation and inhibition.

Authors:  W Y Wang; L Hu; E Valentini; X B Xie; H Y Cui; Y Hu
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Dynamic sounds capture the boundaries of peripersonal space representation in humans.

Authors:  Elisa Canzoneri; Elisa Magosso; Andrea Serino
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Separate mechanisms for audio-tactile pitch and loudness interactions.

Authors:  Jeffrey M Yau; Alison I Weber; Sliman J Bensmaia
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2010-10-13

6.  Different audio spatial metric representation around the body.

Authors:  Elena Aggius-Vella; Claudio Campus; Monica Gori
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-20       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Peripersonal space in the front, rear, left and right directions for audio-tactile multisensory integration.

Authors:  Yusuke Matsuda; Maki Sugimoto; Masahiko Inami; Michiteru Kitazaki
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.