A further investigation of visual dominance

Colavita, Francis B.; Weisberg, Daniel H.

doi:10.3758/bf03198814

Cited by 105 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, the greater vulnerability of auditory classification to interference by orthogonal variation in an irrelevant visual stimulus, evident in the results of Melara and O'Brien, was probably not the fortuitous outcome of a mismatch in baseline levels of performance. Supporting the hypothesis of visual priority are findings obtained in cued RT tasks, in which visual and auditory stimuli, matched for subjective magnitude, have been presented together, showing that subjects respond predominantly to the visual stimulus, being unaware in some cases that the tone has even been presented (Colavita, 1974;Colavita, Tomko, & Weisberg, 1976;Colavita & Weisberg, 1979). This visual dominance was reduced but not abolished when the subjects were instructed to respond to the tones on conflicting trials, or when the tone was made twice as intense as the light (Colavita, 1974;Colavita et al, 1976).…”

Section: Visual-auditory Interaction 1159supporting

confidence: 49%

“…Alternatively, however, there may exist ineluctable asymmetries in the processing of visual and auditory information (see, e.g., Colavita & Weisberg, 1979;Egeth & Sager, 1977). These asymmetries are typically explained by proposing that visual signals tend to be sampled first (Colavita, 1974) or receive relatively more attention than auditory signals (Colavita & Weisberg, 1979;Egeth & Sager, 1977;Posner, Nissen, & Klein, 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These asymmetries are typically explained by proposing that visual signals tend to be sampled first (Colavita, 1974) or receive relatively more attention than auditory signals (Colavita & Weisberg, 1979;Egeth & Sager, 1977;Posner, Nissen, & Klein, 1976). To compare conditions in which baseline performance on the relevant and irrelevant dimension is both matched and mismatched may help clarify the processes underlying visual-auditory interactions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference

Ben-Artzi

Marks

1995

Perception & Psychophysics

149

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment examined cross-modal interference and congruence in speeded classification: Subjects had to identify compound (visual-auditory) stimuli as either low or high in spatial position (visualjudgment) or low or high in pitch (auditory judgment), in 16 conditions, each of which combined one of four possible pairs of tones, varying in frequency difference, with one of four possible pairs of dots, varying in positional difference. Both classification by position and classification by pitch revealed Garner interference (poorer performance than baseline, with orthogonal variation in the irrelevant dimension) and congruence effects (better performance with congruent than with incongruent stimulus combinations), but pitch classification showed more. Furthermore, the size of the pitch difference strongly affected classification by pitch and less strongly affected classification by position, but the size of the position difference affected neither. The findings are consistent with the view that Garner interference and congruence effects are closely related, perhaps arising from a common source, and suggest that the asymmetries could depend in part on the degree of dimensional overlap between stimuli and responses.Research in recent decades has revealed complex, and not yet well understood, interactions in the perceptual processing of multi modal and multidimensional stimuli. Especially notable is research concerning the extent to which different components of complex stimuli are attended selectively-that is, perceived distinctively-and how various experimental parameters, such as the task and the nature of the stimulus, affect attentional selectivity (

show abstract

Section: Visual-auditory Interaction 1159supporting

confidence: 49%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference

Ben-Artzi

Marks

1995

Perception & Psychophysics

149

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to proprioceptive feedback, a feature that was likely to have been represented more strongly in Experiment 2a than in Experiment 1 was the visual representation of the moving hand, because this information allowed for controlling whether the intended end position of the slider had been reached. This difference might cause a dominance of the visual feedback of the moving hand, akin to other effects of visual dominance reported in the literature (Colavita, 1974;Colavita & Weisberg, 1979;Posner, Nissen, & Klein, 1976). In other words, the task-irrelevant bodily feedback might not have mattered (Kunde, Krauss, & Weigelt, 2009;Kunde & Weigelt, 2005;Mechsner, Kerzel, Knoblich, & Prinz, 2001;Mechsner & Knoblich, 2004) because the actions in Experiment 2a were represented by visuospatial features (see Janczyk, Skirde, Weigelt, & Kunde, 2009, for converging evidence).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Stroking me softly: Body-related effects in effect-based action control

Wirth

Pfister

Brandes

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical investigations of ideomotor effect anticipations have mainly focused on action effects in the environment. By contrast, action effects that apply to the agent's body have rarely been put to the test in corresponding experimental paradigms. We present a series of experiments using the response-effect compatibility paradigm, in which we studied the impacts of to-be-produced tactile action effects on action selection, initiation, and execution. The results showed a robust and reliable impact if these tactile action effects were rendered task-relevant (Exp. 1), but not when they were task-irrelevant (Exps. 2a and 2b). We further showed that anticipations of tactile action effects follow the same time course as anticipations of environment-related effects (Exps. 3 and 4). These findings demonstrate that body-related action effects affect action control much as environment-related effects do, and therefore support the theoretical assumption of the functional equivalence of all types of action effects.

show abstract

“…Visual dominance is a well-established phenomenon occurring when visual processing dominates over other sensory modalities as vision often constitutes the most reliable of the senses [6][7][8]10]. For example, in the ventriloquist effect [17] the observer perceives the auditory signal as emanating from the same location as the moving lips that he/she visually perceives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Familiarity of objects affects susceptibility to the sound-induced flash illusion

Setti

Chan

2011

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t  Visual familiarity reduces susceptibility to the sound induced flash-illusion  The effect of familiarity holds for faces and buildings  Early audio-visual multisensory interactions are modulated by high level processing AbstractAudition is accepted as more reliable (thus dominant) than vision when temporal discrimination is required by the task. However, it is not known whether the characteristics of the visual stimulus, for example its familiarity to the perceiver, affect auditory dominance. In this study we manipulated familiarity of the visual stimulus in a well-established multisensory phenomenon, i.e. the sound-induced flash illusion. This illusion occurs when, for example, one brief visual stimulus (e.g. a flash) is presented in close temporal proximity with two brief sounds; participants perceive two flashes instead of one. We found that when the visual faces or buildings stimuli were familiar, participants were less susceptible to the illusion than when they were unfamiliar. As the illusion has been ascribed to early cross-sensory interactions between vision and audition, the present work offers behavioural evidence that high level processing of objects" characteristics such as familiarity, affect early temporal multisensory integration. Possible mechanisms underlying the effect of familiarity are discussed.

show abstract

A further investigation of visual dominance

Cited by 105 publications

References 6 publications

Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference

Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference

Stroking me softly: Body-related effects in effect-based action control

Familiarity of objects affects susceptibility to the sound-induced flash illusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About