Hearing Cheats Touch, but Less in Congenitally Blind Than in Sighted Individuals

Hötting, Kirsten; Röder, Brigitte

doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501010.x

Cited by 110 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Andersen, Tiippana, and Sams (2004) extended this work by showing that the number of perceived flashes can be either increased (called fission) or decreased (called fusion) by presenting either a larger or a smaller number of irrelevant beeps in combination with the flashes. In addition to these audiovisual illusions, comparable effects have been reported for almost all other combinations of modalities (Bresciani et al, 2005;Courtney, Motes, & Hubbard, 2007;Ernst, Bresciani, Drewing, & Bülthoff, 2004;Hötting & Röder, 2004;Violentyev, Shimojo, & Shams, 2005).…”

supporting

confidence: 62%

Counting visual and tactile events: The effect of attention on multisensory integration

Werkhoven

Erp²,

Philippi

2009

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrelevant events in one sensory modality can influence the number of events that are perceived in another modality. Previously, the underlying process of sensory integration was studied in conditions in which participants knew a priori which sensory modality was relevant and which was not. Consequently, (bottom-up) sensory interference and (top-down) selective attention were confounded. We disentangled these effects by measuring the influence of visual flashes on the number of tactile taps that were perceived, and vice versa, in two conditions. In the cue condition, participants were instructed on which modality to report before the bimodal stimulus was presented. In the no-cue condition, they were instructed after stimulus presentation. Participants reported the number of events that they perceived for bimodal combinations of one, two, or three flashes and one, two, or three taps. Our main findings were that (1) in no-cue conditions, the influence of vision on touch was stronger than was the influence of touch on vision; (2) in cue conditions, the integration effects were smaller than those in no-cue conditions; and (3) irrelevant taps were less easily ignored than were irrelevant flashes. This study disentangled previously confounded bottom-up and top-down effects: The bottom-up influence of vision on touch was stronger, but vision was also more easily suppressed by top-down selective attention. We have compared our results qualitatively and quantitatively with recently proposed sensory-integration models.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 62%

Counting visual and tactile events: The effect of attention on multisensory integration

Werkhoven

Erp²,

Philippi

2009

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This illusory effect has been explained by taking into account the higher reliability of the auditory modality as compared with the visual modality in the temporal domain (see Shams, Ma, & Beierholm, 2005). This effect, which constitutes a robust perceptual phenomenon, has now been replicated in the audiotactile not to mention visuotactile domains (Bresciani et al, 2005;Bresciani & Ernst, 2007;Hötting, Friedrich, & Röder, 2009;Hötting & Röder, 2004). In one of their studies, Bresciani and Ernst (2007) presented series of beeps and taps and had their participants report on the number of tactile stimuli while ignoring the auditory distractors.…”

Section: Numerositymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast with other studies (e.g., Bresciani & Ernst, 2007;Bresciani et al, 2005;Hötting & Röder, 2004;Shams, Kamitani, & Shimojo, 2000) that explored whether there was any interfering effect between sequences of stimuli, the goal of Philippi et al's study was to explore whether the presentation of congruent sequences of stimuli would have a beneficial effect on participants' temporal numerosity estimation judgments (see also Lee & Spence, 2008). The participants in this particular study were presented with sequences (i.e., 2 to 10) of stimuli at interstimulus intervals (ISIs) varying from 20 to 320 ms.…”

Section: Numerositymentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiotactile interactions in temporal perception

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present review, we focus on how commonalities in the ontogenetic development of the auditory and tactile sensory systems may inform the interplay between these signals in the temporal domain. In particular, we describe the results of behavioral studies that have investigated temporal resolution (in temporal order, synchrony/asynchrony, and simultaneity judgment tasks), as well as temporal numerosity perception, and similarities in the perception of frequency across touch and hearing. The evidence reviewed here highlights features of audiotactile temporal perception that are distinctive from those seen for other pairings of sensory modalities. For instance, audiotactile interactions are characterized in certain tasks (e.g., temporal numerosity judgments) by a more balanced reciprocal influence than are other modality pairings. Moreover, relative spatial position plays a different role in the temporal order and temporal recalibration processes for audiotactile stimulus pairings than for other modality pairings. The effect exerted by both the spatial arrangement of stimuli and attention on temporal order judgments is described. Moreover, a number of audiotactile interactions occurring during sensory-motor synchronization are highlighted. We also look at the audiotactile perception of rhythm and how it may be affected by musical training. The differences emerging from this body of research highlight the need for more extensive investigation into audiotactile temporal interactions. We conclude with a brief overview of some of the key issues deserving of further research in this area.Keywords Auditory . Tactile . Temporal . Frequency . Audiotactile . Crossmodal similarities . Mechanoreception . MultisensoryThe boundaries between hearing and touch: the foundation of an analogyWe continuously interact with environments that provide a large amount of multisensory information to our various senses. Researchers have now convincingly demonstrated that the inputs delivered by the different sensory channels tend to be bound together by the brain (see the section Research on hearing and touch: a multisensory perspective for a fuller discussion of this topic). Unlike the audiovisual and visuotactile sensory pairings, those interactions taking place at both the neuronal and behavioral level between audition and touch have, to date, been explored in far less detail (see Kitagawa & Spence, 2006;Soto-Faraco & Deco, 2009, for reviews of the extant literature). The paucity of research covering this modality pairing is rather surprising when one considers the wide range of everyday situations in which we experience-even though often in subtle and unconscious ways-the interplay between these two senses. Examples include perceiving the "auditory" buzzing and the itchy "tactile" sensation of an insect landing on the back of our neck; reaching for a mobile phone ringing and vibrating in our pocket. What is common to these situations is the exclusive-or, at the very least, predominant-reliance on cues provided by the

show abstract

“…These, in turn, produce illusions, such as the McGurk effect (McGurk & MacDonald, 1976), spatial or temporal ventriloquism (e.g., Bertelson, Vroomen, de Gelder, & Driver, 2000;Vroomen, Bertelson, & de Gelder, 2001;Vroomen & de Gelder, 2004), or the double-flash effect (Hötting & Röder, 2004;Shams, Kamitani, & Shimojo, 2000); but how intermodal binding actually works is still unclear. Multimodal perception (such as with audiovisual stimuli) faces binding problems that are far more complicated than within a single modality, due to the fundamental differences both in the physical properties of, say, sound and light and in the sensory transduction mechanisms (e.g., in transduction latencies, which prevent the use of tight temporal-synchrony criteria for crossmodal binding).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal dynamics of unimodal and multimodal feature binding

Zmigrod

Hommel

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we studied the temporal dynamics of feature integration with auditory (Experiment 1) and audiovisual (Experiment 2) stimuli and manual responses. Consistent with previous observations, performance was better when the second of two consecutive stimuli shared all or none of the features of the first, rather than when only one of the features overlapped. Comparable partial-overlap costs were obtained for combinations of stimulus features and responses. These effects decreased systematically with increasing time between the two stimulus-and-response events, and the decreased rate was comparable for unimodal and multimodal bindings. General effect size reflected the degree of task relevance of the dimension or modality of the respective feature, but the effects of relevance and of temporal delay did not interact. This suggests that the processing of stimuli on task-relevant sensory modalities and feature dimensions is facilitated by task-specific attentional sets, whereas the temporal dynamics might reflect that bindings "decay" or become more difficult to access over time.

show abstract

Hearing Cheats Touch, but Less in Congenitally Blind Than in Sighted Individuals

Cited by 110 publications

References 28 publications

Counting visual and tactile events: The effect of attention on multisensory integration

Counting visual and tactile events: The effect of attention on multisensory integration

Audiotactile interactions in temporal perception

Temporal dynamics of unimodal and multimodal feature binding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About