Literature DB >> 20674555

Crossmodal congruency effects based on stimulus identity.

Christian Frings1, Charles Spence.   

Abstract

We investigated whether the crossmodal congruency effect, normally observed in spatial compatibility tasks, would also affect performance on a task based on discriminating stimulus identity (i.e., a non-spatial dimension). Two rhythms were presented to participants' eyes, ears, and/or hands in a 4-alternative rhythm discrimination task. Stimulus identity and stimulus modality were varied orthogonally. When the target and distractor rhythms were presented in different sensory modalities, significant crossmodal congruency effects were observed in all conditions (i.e., performance on the incongruent distractor trials was significantly more error-prone than on the congruent distractor trials). In contrast to the results of previous studies, these crossmodal distractor effects were neither based on the spatial compatibility of the stimuli nor on an abstract semantic matching of stimulus identity, but instead on the identity of the target rhythm. Intriguingly, the magnitude of the crossmodal congruency effects differed as a function of the target modality, but were unaffected by the modality of the distractor. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20674555     DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.07.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res        ISSN: 0006-8993            Impact factor:   3.252


  9 in total

1.  You can't ignore what you can't separate: the effect of visually induced target-distractor separation on tactile selection.

Authors:  Ann-Katrin Wesslein; Charles Spence; Christian Frings
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-06

2.  Vision of embodied rubber hands enhances tactile distractor processing.

Authors:  Ann-Katrin Wesslein; Charles Spence; Christian Frings
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  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

4.  The level of representation of irrelevant stimuli-Distractor-response binding within and between the senses.

Authors:  Ruth Laub; Simon Merz; Helena Dröschel; Christian Frings
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 5.  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

6.  Audio-visual interaction in visual motion detection: Synchrony versus Asynchrony.

Authors:  Stephanie Rosemann; Inga-Maria Wefel; Volkan Elis; Manfred Fahle
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2017-02-23

7.  Assessing the quality of supplementary sensory feedback using the crossmodal congruency task.

Authors:  Daniel Blustein; Adam Wilson; Jon Sensinger
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Crossmodal congruency effect scores decrease with repeat test exposure.

Authors:  Daniel Blustein; Satinder Gill; Adam Wilson; Jon Sensinger
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 2.984

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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.