On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality

Abstract

Perceptual judgments can be affected by expectancies regarding the likely target modality. This has been taken as evidence for selective attention to particular modalities, but alternative accounts remain possible in terms of response priming, criterion shifts, stimulus repetition, and spatial confounds. We examined whether attention to a sensory modality would still be apparent when these alternatives were ruled out. Subjects made a speeded detection response (Experiment 1), an intensity or color discrimination (Experiment 2), or a spatial discrimination response (Experiments 3 and 4) for auditory and visual targets presented in a random sequence. On each trial, a symbolic visual cue predicted the likely target modality. Responses were always more rapid and accurate for targets presented in the expected versus unexpected modality, implying that people can indeed selectively attend to the auditory or visual modalities. When subjects were cued to both the probable modality of a target and its likely spatiallocation (Experiment 4), separable modality-cuing and spatial-cuing effects were observed. These studies introduce appropriate methods for distinguishing attention to a modality from the confounding factors that have plagued previous normal and clinical research.

Visual and haptic influence on perception of stimulus size

“…In the present set of experiments, haptic and visual stimuli were presented at disparate locations. It is true that this situation makes it impossible to quantify the contributions of attending to a particular location or to a particular modality (Spence & Driver, 1997). Although the present findings may be prejudiced by cues from the location of each stimulus, this was unavoidable in the present situation (i.e., the Phantom and TDS are too large to be placed in the same spatial location as a PC screen).…”

The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality

“…However, Spence and Driver (1997) highlighted another potential problem with most previous modalitycuing studies (e.g., Boulter, 1977;Gescheider et al, 1975;Klein, 1977;Posner et al, 1976;Post & Chapman, 1991;Roland, 1982): Targets in the various modalities were presented from different spatial locations. In Klein's study, auditory targets were presented over headphones, visual targets from a cathode-ray tube in front of participants, and tactile-kinesthetic stimuli to their right forefinger (which was moved to the left or right by a servo motor).…”

“…Consequently, information about the likely target modality may have directed spatial attention (overtly and/or covertly) to the likely location, rather than to one modality per se (cf. Posner, Nissen, & Ogden, 1978, p. 152;Spence & Driver, 1997). In this study, we repeat Klein's basic design, while correcting for the potential location confound.…”

“…However, this may reflect a criterion shift for stimuli in the expected modality, rather than an increased sensitivity (cf. Duncan, 1980;Spence & Driver, 1997). Some modality-cuing effects have been observed in discrimination tasks (e.g., Gescheider, Sager, & Ruffolo, 1975;Klein, 1977;Posner et al, 1976), allowing the assessment of any criterion shifts.…”

Neural activity patterns between different executive tasks are more similar in adulthood than in adolescence

“…The stimulus‐response rule in itself (i.e., respond whether or not the letter matched) did therefore not change, but the stimulus category/properties did. Previous studies have used similar single‐task designs requiring cross‐modal attention shifts, and they have demonstrated similar performance decrements as in traditional switching paradigms with two different tasks within one modality (Lukas, Philipp, & Koch, 2010; Spence & Driver, 1997). In our previous study using this same task, we showed that the modality switch caused performance decrements reflected by both prolonged response times and increased number of response errors (Moisala et al., 2017).…”