A two-stage model for visual-auditory interaction in saccadic latencies

Colonius, Hans; Arndt, Petra A.

doi:10.3758/bf03200508

Cited by 104 publications

(83 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Miller, , 1986Patching & Quinlan, 2004). Violations of the RMI are observed in the latency of saccadic eye movements to spatially aligned bimodal targets (Colonius & Arndt, 2001;Frens, Van Opstal, & Van der Willigen, 1995;Hughes et al, 1994), a finding that is consistent with an extensive anatomical and electrophysiological literature demonstrating that the superior colliculus, an important oculomotor center, is also a site of multimodal convergence-a site where individual neurons receive direct auditory and visual afferents (Dräger & Hubel, 1975a, 1975bMeredith & Stein, 1983;Stein, Jiang, Wallace, & Stanford, 2001;Stein, Wallace, Stanford, & Jiang, 2002; recently reviewed in Holmes & Spence, 2005).…”

supporting

confidence: 58%

Multimodal access to verbal name codes

Berryhill

Kveraga

Webb

et al. 2007

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 58%

Multimodal access to verbal name codes

Berryhill

Kveraga

Webb

et al. 2007

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As was mentioned above, due to the blocking of different stimulus conditions, our measures of RT enhancement effects must be considered to be conservative. In addition, it is well known that MRE decreases with increasing spatial disparity between the stimuli from different modalities (Colonius & Arndt, 2001;Frens, Van Opstal, & Van der Willigen, 1995;Harrington & Peck, 1998;Hughes, Nelson, & Aronchick, 1998;Spence & Driver, 1997a, 1997b. Due to limitations of our experimental setup, the stimuli from different modalities could not be presented at the same spatial location, possibly contributing to an underestimation of the true effect as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…First, responses faster than those predicted by the race model may indicate only that, in addition to statistical facilitation, other mechanisms for re- sponse speedup may be effective, including interchannel crosstalk from interstimulus contingencies (see Mordkoff & Yantis, 1993) and warning signal or attention effects (see Spence, 2002); for other recent quantitative proposals for the RSE that partially retain the race concept, see Miller and Ulrich (2003), Colonius and Arndt (2001), and Colonius and Diederich (2004). Second, the behavior of multisensory neurons is complex, defying any simple extrapolation from changes in spike rate activity to RT changes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bimodal and trimodal multisensory enhancement: Effects of stimulus onset and intensity on reaction time

Diederich

Colonius

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

332

227

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manual reaction times to visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli presented simultaneously, or with a delay, were measured to test for multisensory interaction effects in a simple detection task with redundant signals. Responses to trimodal stimulus combinations were faster than those to bimodal combinations, which in turn were faster than reactions to unimodal stimuli. Response enhancement increased with decreasing auditory and tactile stimulus intensity and was a U-shaped function of stimulus onset asynchrony. Distribution inequality tests indicated that the multisensory interaction effects were larger than predicted by separate activation models, including the difference between bimodal and trimodal response facilitation. The results are discussed with respect to previous findings in a focused attention task and are compared with multisensory integration rules observed in bimodal and trimodal superior colliculus neurons in the cat and monkey.

show abstract

“…Multisensory integration confers behavioral advantages (for review, see Stein and Meredith, 1993), such as shorter orienting reaction times (Frens et al, 1995;Giard and Peronnet, 1999;Colonius and Arndt, 2001;Corneil et al, 2002;Bell et al, 2005). This could be attributable to faster neuronal response latencies for bimodal compared with unimodal stimuli or to bimodal latencies equivalent to the shorter unimodal latencies (Wallace et al, 1996;Brett-Green et al, 2003).…”

Section: Response Latenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory Integration in the Ventral Intraparietal Area of the Macaque Monkey

Avillac¹,

Hamed²,

Duhamel³

2007

J. Neurosci.

244

205

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study was to characterize multisensory interaction patterns in cortical ventral intraparietal area (VIP). We recorded single-unit activity in two alert monkeys during the presentation of visual (drifting gratings) and tactile (low-pressure air puffs) stimuli. One stimulus was always positioned inside the receptive field of the neuron. The other stimulus was defined so as to manipulate the spatial and temporal disparity between the two stimuli. More than 70% of VIP cells showed a significant modulation of their response by bimodal stimulations. These cells included both bimodal cells, i.e., cells responsive to both tested modalities, and seemingly unimodal cells, i.e., cells responding to only one of the two tested modalities. This latter observation suggests that postsynaptic latent mechanisms are involved in multisensory integration. In both cell categories, neuronal responses are either enhanced or depressed and reflect nonlinear sub-, super-, or additive mechanisms. The occurrence of these observations is maximum when stimuli are in temporal synchrony and spatially congruent. Interestingly, introducing spatial or temporal disparities between stimuli does not affect the sign or the magnitude of interactions but rather their occurrence. Multisensory stimulation also affects the neuronal response latencies of bimodal stimuli. For a given neuron, these are on average intermediate between the two unimodal response latencies, again suggesting latent postsynaptic mechanisms. In summary, we show that the majority of VIP neurons perform multisensory integration, following general rules (e.g., spatial congruency and temporal synchrony) that are closely similar to those described in other cortical and subcortical regions.

show abstract

A two-stage model for visual-auditory interaction in saccadic latencies

Cited by 104 publications

References 53 publications

Multimodal access to verbal name codes

Multimodal access to verbal name codes

Bimodal and trimodal multisensory enhancement: Effects of stimulus onset and intensity on reaction time

Multisensory Integration in the Ventral Intraparietal Area of the Macaque Monkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About