Intersensory Facilitation of Reaction Time: Evaluation of Counter and Diffusion Coactivation Models

Diederich, Adele

doi:10.1006/jmps.1995.1020

Cited by 120 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We addressed this question with the application of a diffusion model to test explicitly for differential cross-modal cueing effects. The model has repeatedly shown to predict redundancy gains successfully in bimodal divided attention tasks (Schwarz, 1994;Diederich, 1995;Gondan, Götze & Greenlee, 2010;Gondan et al, 2011;Blurton, Greenlee & Gondan, 2014). On the one hand, the inspection of the model parameters supports previous interpretations and extends results in endogenous cueing.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…In line with this, the pip-and-pop effect (Van der Burg et al, 2008) also has been found to be greater in invalidly cued search displays than in correctly cued ones (Zou, Müller & Shi, 2012). Sophisticated response time models are available that can explain the redundant-signals effect (Schwarz, 1994;Diederich, 1995). These models provide further insights that cannot be obtained by standard analyses of additive effects on mean RTs (i.e.,factorial analysis of variance designs).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…In Experiment 3, we also used exogenous cues; however, these were again informative. A diffusion superposition model (Schwarz, 1994;Diederich, 1995) was fitted to the observed response times to assess the effects of those cues on multisensory integration of redundant signals. Using comparisons of hierarchically nested models, we tested for the presence of cueing effects and, if present, whether these effects were modality-invariant or modality-specific.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cross-modal cueing in audiovisual spatial attention

Blurton

Greenlee

Gondan

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual processing is most effective at the location of our attentional focus. It has long been known that various spatial cues can direct visuospatial attention and influence the detection of auditory targets. Cross-modal cueing, however, seems to depend on the type of visual cue: facilitation effects have been reported for endogenous visual cues while exogenous cues seem to be mostly ineffective. In three experiments, we investigated cueing effects on the processing of audiovisual signals. In Experiment 1, we used endogenous cues to investigate their effect on the detection of auditory, visual, and audiovisual targets presented with onset asynchrony. Consistent cueing effects were found in all target conditions. In Experiment 2, we used exogenous cues and found cueing effects only for visual target detection, but not auditory target detection. In Experiment 3, we used predictive exogenous cues to examine the possibility that cue-target contingencies were responsible for the difference between Experiment 1 and 2. In all experiments, we investigated whether a response time model can explain the data and tested whether the observed cueing effects were modality-dependent. The results observed with endogenous cues imply that the perception of multisensory signals is modulated by a single, supramodal system operating in a top-down manner (Experiment 1). In contrast, bottom-up control of attention, as observed in the exogenous cueing task of Experiment 2, mainly exerts its influence through modality-specific subsystems. Experiment 3 showed that this striking difference does not depend on contingencies between cue and target.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cross-modal cueing in audiovisual spatial attention

Blurton

Greenlee

Gondan

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, featural and configural information may be initially processed in parallel, and the outputs of this processing may be pooled or combined into a single channel of information. In this case, processing would be characterized as a special form of parallel processing known as coactive processing (e.g., Diederich, 1995;Miller, 1982Miller, , 1991Mordkoff & Egeth, 1993;Mordkoff & Yantis, 1991;Townsend & Nozawa, 1995). According to the first assumption of the dualmode hypothesis, featural and configural information is simultaneously available, which maps naturally to an assumption of parallel processing.…”

Section: The Dual-mode Hypothesis As a Processing Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis

Ingvalson

Wenger

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…information, then switch to the stimulus information (p. 206; see also Busemeyer & Diederich, 2002;Diederich, 1995Diederich, , 1997Diederich, , 2008.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of two diffusion process models in accounting for payoff and stimulus frequency manipulations

Leite

2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I analyzed response time and accuracy data from a numerosity discrimination experiment in which both stimulus frequency and payoff structure were manipulated. The numerosity discrimination encompassed responding either "low" or "high" to the number of asterisks in a 10 × 10 grid, on the basis of an experimenter-determined decision cutoff (fixed at 50). In the stimulus frequency condition, there were more low than high stimuli in some blocks and more high than low stimuli in other blocks. In the payoff condition, responses were rewarded such that the relative value of a stimulus mimicked the relative frequency of that stimulus in the previous manipulation. I modeled the data using two sequential-sampling models in which evidence was accumulated until either a "low" or a "high" decision criterion was reached and a response was initiated: a single-stage diffusion model framework and a two-stage diffusion model framework. In using these two frameworks, the goal was to examine their relative merits across stimulus frequency and payoff structure manipulations. I found that shifts in starting point in a single-stage diffusion framework and shifts in the initial drift rate in the two-stage model were able to account for the data. I also found, however, that these two shifts across the two models produced similar changes in the random walk that described the decision process. In conclusion, I found that the similarities in the descriptions of the decision processes make it difficult to choose between the two models and suggested that such a choice should consider model assumptions and parameter estimate interpretations.

show abstract

Intersensory Facilitation of Reaction Time: Evaluation of Counter and Diffusion Coactivation Models

Cited by 120 publications

References 0 publications

Cross-modal cueing in audiovisual spatial attention

Cross-modal cueing in audiovisual spatial attention

A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis

A comparison of two diffusion process models in accounting for payoff and stimulus frequency manipulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About