On the relationship between the redundant signals effect and temporal order judgments: Parametric data and a new model.

Schwarz, Wolfgang

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.558

Cited by 26 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 66 publications

(128 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The facilitation effects observed in the valid cue condition could have led to such increased processing speed that the second stimulus component itself could not substantially speed up the detection processes: The more efficiently a signal is processed the smaller is the expected redundancy gain. By analogy, if targets are presented at different eccentricities, redundancy gains are often reported to be smaller for targets presented at more central locations (i.e., if the target falls into the small receptive fields of the fovea) than for targets presented at more peripheral locations (Schwarz, 2006). 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).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-modal cueing in audiovisual spatial attention

Blurton

Greenlee

Gondan

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…f f The adjusted models describe only the mean RTs (see, e.g., Schwarz, 2006), although Schwarz (1994, Appendix B) derived an explicit prediction for the variance of D for different SOAs. Using two additional parameters for the variance of M and the correlation between D and M ( 2 M , DM ), it is possible to describe the variance of the observed RTs as well.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lateralized stimulus presentation was necessary because, in a pilot study, weak central stimuli turned out to be so salient that the mean RTs for centrally presented weak and strong visual stimuli did not significantly differ. Moreover, presenting visual and auditory stimuli left and right of central fixation allows for manipulation of the distance between the stimulus components (e.g., Gondan et al, 2005;Schwarz, 2006) in follow-up experiments. Visual stimuli were either of high intensity (V; Michelson contrast, .98) or of low intensity (v;Michelson contrast,.20).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Auditory-visual redundancy gains have been studied most extensively using simple response tasks (e.g., Miller, 1982, Experiments 1 and 2;Miller, 1986;Raab, 1962;Schwarz, 2006). In the simple response task (Type A re-Because F C F F (t) cancels out on the two sides of Inequality 2, only the RT distribution of the second stimulus needs to be corrected (for more details and a justification of the procedure, see Gondan & Heckel, 2008).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Redundancy gains in simple responses and go/no-go tasks

Gondan

Götze

Greenlee

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

f In divided-attention tasks with two classes of target stimuli, participants typically respond more quickly if b both targets are presented simultaneously, as compared with single-target presentation (redundant-signals effect). n Different explanations exist for this effect, including serial, parallel, and coactivation models of information processing. In two experiments, we investigated redundancy gains in simple and go/no-go responses to auditoryprocessing. In two experiments, we investigated redundancy gains in simple and go/no-go responses to auditoryvisual stimuli presented with an onset asynchrony. In Experiment r 1, go/no-go discrimination was performed for near-threshold and suprathreshold stimuli. Response times in both the simple and go/no-go responses were well explained by a common coactivation model assuming linear superposition of modality-specific activation. In Experiment 2, the go/no-go task was made more difficult. Participants had to respond to high-frequency tones or right-tilted Gabor patches and to withhold their response for low tones and left-tilted Gabors. Redundancy gains were consistent with coactivation models; however, channel-specific buildup of evidence seems to occur gains were consistent with coactivation models; however, channel-specific buildup of evidence seems to occur at different speeds in the two tasks. Response times of 1 participant support a serial self-terminating model of modality-specific information processing.

show abstract

“…Specifically, when subjects are not discouraged from making so-called fast guesses-that is, responses given without processing the stimulus and assumed to be much faster than regular responses-or if display conditions are such that stimuli are sometimes not detected at all, it has been shown (Eriksen, 1988;Gondan & Heckel, 2008;Miller & Lopes, 1991;Miller & Ulrich, 2003) that the power of the RMI test to detect violations of the race model diminishes. Here, we show that this holds not only for the case in which subjects are missing a proportion of the stimuli, but also when an experimenter excludes a proportion of the responses, by censoring the RT distributions from the left and/or the right-that is, excluding responses below and/or above a certain RT value because they are considered to be anticipations or outliers (e.g., Giray & Ulrich, 1993;Leo, Bertini, di Pellegrino, & Là-davas, 2008;Miller & Van Nes, 2007;Savazzi & Marzi, 2008;Schwarz, 2006). Furthermore, the experimenter may miss a proportion of the responses by not registering reactions given after some arbitrary upper bound; up to 8% of responses have sometimes been eliminated this way (see Gondan, Vorberg, & Greenlee, 2007;Miller, 2007aMiller, , 2007bMiller & Van Nes, 2007).…”

Section: Max[f X (T R ) F Y (T R )] F Xy (T R ) (6)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The race model inequality for censored reaction time distributions

Rach

Diederich

Steenken

et al. 2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the redundant-signals paradigm for simple reaction time (RT), the observer must initiate a response as quickly as possible following the detection of any stimulus onset. A typical finding is a redundancy gain: Responses are faster, on average, when two or more signals are presented simultaneously than when a single signal appears. This redundant-signals effect (RSE) has often, although not always, been replicated under different experimental settings-for example, comparing uni-versus multimodal stimulation (Diederich, 1995;Diederich & Colonius, 1987;Gielen, Schmidt, & Van den Heuvel, 1983;Miller, 1982Miller, , 1986Molholm, Ritter, Javitt, & Foxe, 2004), single versus multiple stimuli within the same modality (e.g., Schwarz & Ischebeck, 1994), or monocular versus binocular stimulation (Hughes & Townsend, 1998; Westendorf & Blake, 1988)-and for specific populations (see, e.g., Corballis, 1998;Miller, 2004;Reuter-Lorenz, Nozawa, Gazzaniga, & Hughes, 1995;and Savazzi & Marzi, 2004, all for split-brain individuals; and Marzi et al., 1996, for hemianopics).Raab (1962) proposed a race model for simple RT, postulating that (1) each individual stimulus elicits a (normally distributed) detection process performed in parallel to the others and (2) the winner's time determines the observable RT. The race model opens up the possibility that the RSE is generated by statistical facilitation: If detection latencies are interpreted as (nonnegative) random variables, the time to detect the first of several redundant signals is faster, on average, than the detection time for any single signal. Testing the race model amounts to probing whether an observed RT speedup is too large to be attributable to statistical facilitation (viz., probability summation), no matter which distributional assumptions have been made.A test of general race models was developed by Miller (1978Miller ( , 1982, showing thatmust hold for all t 0. This race model inequality (RMI) follows fromfor any pair of random variables (X, Y ) with a joint probability distribution based on Pr XY and with its marginal distributions identical to Pr X and Pr Y . Thus, as was observed in Luce (1986, p. 130), the RMI test requires that the RT distributions in the single-signal conditions are identical to the corresponding (marginal) RT distributions in the redundant-signals condition (cf. Colonius, 1990). Note that, for fixed t, Inequality 2 corresponds to the well-known Boole's inequality (e.g., Billingsley, 1979). Neglecting possible additional components (such as motor time), the inequality stipulates that the RT distribution function for redundant stimuli is never larger than the sum of the RT distributions for the single stimuli. A violation of this inequality is interpreted as an indication of an underlying coactivation mechanism or some other strong form of nonindependence. The race model inequality (RMI) introduced in Miller (1982) puts an upper limit on the amount of reaction time facilitation within the redundant-signals paradigm that is consistent with a race ...

show abstract

On the relationship between the redundant signals effect and temporal order judgments: Parametric data and a new model.

Cited by 26 publications

References 66 publications

Cross-modal cueing in audiovisual spatial attention

Cross-modal cueing in audiovisual spatial attention

Redundancy gains in simple responses and go/no-go tasks

The race model inequality for censored reaction time distributions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About