Literature DB >> 9136269

On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality.

C Spence1, J Driver.   

Abstract

Perceptual judgments can be affected by expectancies regarding the likely target modality. This has been taken as evidence for selective attention to particular modalities, but alternative accounts remain possible in terms of response priming, criterion shifts, stimulus repetition, and spatial confounds. We examined whether attention to a sensory modality would still be apparent when these alternatives were ruled out. Subjects made a speeded detection response (Experiment 1), an intensity or color discrimination (Experiment 2), or a spatial discrimination response (Experiments 3 and 4) for auditory and visual targets presented in a random sequence. On each trial, a symbolic visual cue predicted the likely target modality. Responses were always more rapid and accurate for targets presented in the expected versus unexpected modality, implying that people can indeed selectively attend to the auditory or visual modalities. When subjects were cued to both the probable modality of a target and its likely spatial location (Experiment 4), separable modality-cuing and spatial-cuing effects were observed. These studies introduce appropriate methods for distinguishing attention to a modality from the confounding factors that have plagued previous normal and clinical research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9136269     DOI: 10.3758/bf03211906

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  48 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.  Limitations in advance task preparation: switching the relevant stimulus dimension in speeded same-different comparisons.

Authors:  Nachshon Meiran; Hadas Marciano
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2002-06

3.  Sequential effects in auditory choice reaction time tasks.

Authors:  P T Quinlan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-06

4.  Visual enhancement of touch in spatial body representation.

Authors:  Clare Press; Marisa Taylor-Clarke; Steffan Kennett; Patrick Haggard
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2003-09-18       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Unimodal and crossmodal effects of endogenous attention to visual and auditory motion.

Authors:  Anton L Beer; Brigitte Röder
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.282

6.  Biasing the brain's attentional set: I. cue driven deployments of intersensory selective attention.

Authors:  John J Foxe; Gregory V Simpson; Seppo P Ahlfors; Clifford D Saron
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Biasing the brain's attentional set: II. effects of selective intersensory attentional deployments on subsequent sensory processing.

Authors:  John J Foxe; Gregory V Simpson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-08-06       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Separate attentional resources for vision and audition.

Authors:  David Alais; Concetta Morrone; David Burr
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2006-06-07       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Is visual dominance modulated by the threat value of visual and auditory stimuli?

Authors:  Stefaan Van Damme; Geert Crombez; Charles Spence
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-10-25       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Multisensory integration of redundant trisensory stimulation.

Authors:  Carl Erick Hagmann; Natalie Russo
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.