Literature DB >> 8069284

Supramodal and modality-specific mechanisms for stimulus-driven shifts of auditory and visual attention.

L M Ward1.   

Abstract

Two experiments are described in which visual and/or auditory location precues preceded visual or auditory targets. Observers were required to judge the location of the targets. Conditions were such that involuntary, stimulus-driven attention shifts were the only ones likely to occur and give rise to cueing effects. It was found that visual precues affected response time to localize both visual targets and auditory targets but auditory precues affected only the time to localize auditory targets. Moreover, when visual and auditory cues conflicted, visual cues dominated in the visual task but were dominated by auditory cues in the auditory task. These results imply that involuntary stimulus-driven attention shifts might be controlled by a modality-specific mechanism for visual tasks, whereas stimulus-driven shifts of auditory attention are controlled by a supramodal mechanism. This asymmetry in attention control is consistent with the idea that attentional dominance in a multimodal experimental task depends on the relative performance possible in the modalities involved; in this case visual localization is more precise than auditory and so auditory cues may be ineffective in cueing visual location, while visual cues are effective in both modalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8069284     DOI: 10.1037/1196-1961.48.2.242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol        ISSN: 1196-1961


  30 in total

1.  A crossmodal attentional blink between vision and touch.

Authors:  Salvador Soto-Faraco; Charles Spence; Katherine Fairbank; Alan Kingstone; Anne P Hillstrom; Kimron Shapiro
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-12

2.  Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems.

Authors:  Massimo Turatto; Giovanni Galfano; Bruce Bridgeman; Carlo Umiltà
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-12-05       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Multisensory integration affects ERP components elicited by exogenous cues.

Authors:  Valerio Santangelo; Rob H J Van der Lubbe; Marta Olivetti Belardinelli; Albert Postma
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-10-02       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Spatial attention triggered by unimodal, crossmodal, and bimodal exogenous cues: a comparison of reflexive orienting mechanisms.

Authors:  Valerio Santangelo; Rob H J Van der Lubbe; Marta Olivetti Belardinelli; Albert Postma
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-02-18       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Crossmodal interaction in saccadic reaction time: separating multisensory from warning effects in the time window of integration model.

Authors:  Adele Diederich; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-11-15       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  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

7.  Neuronal modulation of auditory attention by informative and uninformative spatial cues.

Authors:  Andrew R Mayer; Alexandre R Franco; Deborah L Harrington
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  Capturing spatial attention with multisensory cues.

Authors:  Valerio Santangelo; Cristy Ho; Charles Spence
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2008-04

9.  Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance.

Authors:  Sarah Lukas; Andrea M Philipp; Iring Koch
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2009-06-11

10.  Control mechanisms mediating shifts of attention in auditory and visual space: a spatio-temporal ERP analysis.

Authors:  Jessica J Green; Wolfgang A Teder-Sälejärvi; John J McDonald
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-08-02       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.