Literature DB >> 27913817

The contribution of response conflict, multisensory integration, and body-mediated attention to the crossmodal congruency effect.

Francesco Marini1,2, Daniele Romano3,4, Angelo Maravita3,4.   

Abstract

The crossmodal congruency task is a consolidated paradigm for investigating interactions between vision and touch. In this task, participants judge the elevation of a tactile target stimulus while ignoring a visual distracter stimulus that may occur at a congruent or incongruent elevation, thus engendering a measure of visuo-tactile interference (crossmodal congruency effect, CCE). The CCE reflects perceptual, attentional, and response-related factors, but their respective roles and interactions have not been set out yet. In two experiments, we used the original version of the crossmodal congruency task as well as ad hoc manipulations of the experimental setting and of the participants' posture for characterizing the contributions of multisensory integration, body-mediated attention, and response conflict to the CCE. Results of the two experiments consistently showed that the largest amount of variance in the CCE is explained by the reciprocal elevation of visual and tactile stimuli. This finding is compatible with a major role of response conflict for the CCE. Weaker yet distinguishable contributions come from multisensory integration, observed in the absence of response conflict, and from hand-mediated attentional binding, observed with the modified posture and in the presence of response conflict. Overall, this study informs the long-standing debate about mechanisms underlying the CCE by revealing that the visuo-tactile interference in this task is primarily due to the competition between opposite response tendencies, with an additional contribution of multisensory integration and hand-mediated attentional binding.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bodily attention; Crossmodal congruency effect; Hand-mediated binding; Multisensory integration; Response conflict; Visuo-tactile

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27913817     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4849-4

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


  49 in total

1.  Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans.

Authors:  Angelo Maravita; Charles Spence; Steffan Kennett; Jon Driver
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2002-03

Review 2.  Merging the senses into a robust percept.

Authors:  Marc O Ernst; Heinrich H Bülthoff
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Visual parsing and response competition: the effect of grouping factors.

Authors:  G C Baylis; J Driver
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1992-02

4.  Visuo-tactile integration in personal space.

Authors:  Matthew R Longo; Jason Jiri Musil; Patrick Haggard
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 3.225

5.  The spread of attention across modalities and space in a multisensory object.

Authors:  Laura Busse; Kenneth C Roberts; Roy E Crist; Daniel H Weissman; Marty G Woldorff
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-12-09       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Dual mechanisms for the cross-sensory spread of attention: how much do learned associations matter?

Authors:  Ian C Fiebelkorn; John J Foxe; Sophie Molholm
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.357

7.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information.

Authors:  J Duncan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1984-12

Review 8.  Crossmodal attention.

Authors:  J Driver; C Spence
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 6.627

9.  Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves.

Authors:  F Pavani; C Spence; J Driver
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2000-09

10.  Tool use changes multisensory interactions in seconds: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task.

Authors:  Nicholas P Holmes; Gemma A Calvert; Charles Spence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-07-31       Impact factor: 1.972

View more
  6 in total

1.  Integration of visual and tactile information in reproduction of traveled distance.

Authors:  Jan Churan; Johannes Paul; Steffen Klingenhoefer; Frank Bremmer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Experimentally induced pain does not influence updating of peripersonal space and body representations following tool-use.

Authors:  Axel D Vittersø; Monika Halicka; Gavin Buckingham; Michael J Proulx; Janet H Bultitude
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Peripersonal Space from a multisensory perspective: the distinct effect of the visual and tactile components of Visuo-Tactile stimuli.

Authors:  Maddalena Beccherle; Stefania Facchetti; Francesca Villani; Marzia Zanini; Michele Scandola
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 2.064

4.  Visuo-motor and interoceptive influences on peripersonal space representation following spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Michele Scandola; Salvatore Maria Aglioti; Giovanna Lazzeri; Renato Avesani; Silvio Ionta; Valentina Moro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  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

Review 6.  Extending the study of visual attention to a multisensory world (Charles W. Eriksen Special Issue).

Authors:  Charles Spence
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 2.199

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.