Literature DB >> 32514664

When irrelevant information helps: Extending the Eriksen-flanker task into a multisensory world.

Simon Merz1, Christian Frings2, Charles Spence3.   

Abstract

Charles W. Eriksen dedicated much of his research career to the field of cognitive psychology, investigating human information processing in those situations that required selection between competing stimuli. Together with his wife Barbara, he introduced the flanker task, which became one of the standard experimental tasks used by researchers to investigate the mechanisms underpinning selection. Although Eriksen himself was primarily interested in investigating visual selection, the flanker task was eventually adapted by other researchers to investigate human information processing and selection in a variety of nonvisual and multisensory situations. Here, we discuss the core aspects of the flanker task and interpret the evidence of the flanker task when used in crossmodal and multisensory settings. "Selection" has been a core topic of psychology for nearly 120 years. Nowadays, though, it is clear that we need to look at selection from a multisensory perspective-the flanker task, at least in its crossmodal and multisensory variants, is an important tool with which to investigate selection, attention, and multisensory information processing.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Audition; Crossmodal attention; Flanker task; Information processing; Multisensory processing; Touch; Vision

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32514664     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-020-02066-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  50 in total

1.  Crossmodal congruency effects based on stimulus identity.

Authors:  Christian Frings; Charles Spence
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 3.252

2.  Attention to touch weakens audiovisual speech integration.

Authors:  Agnès Alsius; Jordi Navarra; Salvador Soto-Faraco
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets.

Authors:  Christian Frings; Klaus Rothermund; Dirk Wentura
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 2.143

4.  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

5.  Attention and the crossmodal construction of space.

Authors:  J Driver; C Spence
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1998-07-01       Impact factor: 20.229

6.  Implicit learning: news from the front.

Authors:  A Cleeremans; A Destrebecqz; M Boyer
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  1998-10-01       Impact factor: 20.229

7.  Rubber hands 'feel' touch that eyes see.

Authors:  M Botvinick; J Cohen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-02-19       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Recognition memory and attentional selection: serial scanning is not enough.

Authors:  B A Eriksen; C W Eriksen; J E Hoffman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Audiovisual integration of speech falters under high attention demands.

Authors:  Agnès Alsius; Jordi Navarra; Ruth Campbell; Salvador Soto-Faraco
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2005-05-10       Impact factor: 10.834

10.  Top-down control and early multisensory processes: chicken vs. egg.

Authors:  Rosanna De Meo; Micah M Murray; Stephanie Clarke; Pawel J Matusz
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2015-03-03
View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.