Crossmodal Matching: A Critical but Neglected Step in Multimodal Research

Tactile, Visual, and Crossmodal Visual-Tactile Change Blindness: The Effect of Transient Type and Task Demands

“…A short-range target appeared in 22% of the trials. Crossmodal matching was used to ensure that tactile and visual cues were perceived to be equally salient (see Crossmodal Matching section; Pitts, Lu, & Sarter, 2013; Pitts, Riggs, & Sarter, 2016).…”

Critique of “Tactile, Visual, and Crossmodal Visual-Tactile Change Blindness: The Effect of Transient Type and Task Demands”

“…As the authors have argued in their previous work, crossmodal matching should be considered a necessary component of crossmodal research, and the development of standardized methods may help encourage researchers to properly conduct and report crossmodal matching procedures (Pitts et al, 2013, 2016). Toward that end, I will conclude with a few suggestions that may improve the validity of future multimodal research.…”

“…As the authors have noted in previous work (Pitts, Riggs, & Sarter, 2016), crossmodal intensity matching is an important step in the execution of crossmodal comparisons as it can prevent confounding modality with intensity. In this instance, crossmodal matching was used to circumvent uncertainty about whether performance differences were due to modality or intensity.…”

Crossmodal Matching: The Case for Developing and Employing a Valid and Feasible Approach to Equate Perceived Stimulus Intensities in Multimodal Research

“…The goal of crossmodal matching is to ensure that the perceived intensities of stimuli across two or more sensory channels are equivalent (Colman, 2008; Pitts, Riggs, & Sarter, 2016; Stevens, 1959). Crossmodal matching is necessary to account for the known large between-subject variability in stimulus perception and to avoid confounding modality with intensity when comparing performance with visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli (e.g., Gomes & Riggs, 2016; Pitts, Lu, & Sarter, 2013; Pitts & Sarter, 2014).…”

“…Crossmodal matching is necessary to account for the known large between-subject variability in stimulus perception and to avoid confounding modality with intensity when comparing performance with visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli (e.g., Gomes & Riggs, 2016; Pitts, Lu, & Sarter, 2013; Pitts & Sarter, 2014). A recent review of the multimodal literature in human factors and ergonomics journals revealed that only 2.7% of studies performed or reported crossmodal matching (Pitts et al, 2016). This raises questions about the validity of many findings in this important research area.…”