On the relative contributions of multisensory integration and crossmodal exogenous spatial attention to multisensory response enhancement

Stoep, Nathan Van der; Spence, Charles; Nijboer, Tanja C.W.; Stigchel, Stefan Van der

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.09.010

Cited by 40 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using violations of the race model inequality as an indicator of multisensory gain, they found that despite significant differences in RT to unisensory stimuli that resulted from variations in stimulus intensity (i.e., more intense stimuli resulted in faster RTs), multisensory gain was restricted to a narrow range of SOAs within 50 ms of simultaneity (see also van der Stoep et al 2015b). Furthermore, the largest multisensory gain occurred at physical simultaneity (SOA = 0 ms).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the start of each trial, participants were to fixate at the central LED. Then, they performed a Go/No-go detection task, in which they had to respond as fast as possible to peripheral but not central locations by button press (i.e., an implicit spatial discrimination task using multisensory stimuli, see Van der Stoep et al 2015b, c, 2016b, 2017; see McDonald and Ward 1999 for a description of the original paradigm; see Fig. 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Audiovisual integration in depth: multisensory binding and gain as a function of distance

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The integration of information across sensory modalities is dependent on the spatiotemporal characteristics of the stimuli that are paired. Despite large variation in the distance over which events occur in our environment, relatively little is known regarding how stimulus-observer distance affects multisensory integration. Prior work has suggested that exteroceptive stimuli are integrated over larger temporal intervals in near relative to far space, and that larger multisensory facilitations are evident in far relative to near space. Here, we sought to examine the interrelationship between these previously established distance-related features of multisensory processing. Participants performed an audiovisual simultaneity judgment and redundant target task in near and far space, while audiovisual stimuli were presented at a range of temporal delays (i.e., stimulus onset asynchronies). In line with the previous findings, temporal acuity was poorer in near relative to far space. Furthermore, reaction time to asynchronously presented audiovisual targets suggested a temporal window for fast detection—a range of stimuli asynchronies that was also larger in near as compared to far space. However, the range of reaction times over which multisensory response enhancement was observed was limited to a restricted range of relatively small (i.e., 150 ms) asynchronies, and did not differ significantly between near and far space. Furthermore, for synchronous presentations, these distance-related (i.e., near vs. far) modulations in temporal acuity and multisensory gain correlated negatively at an individual subject level. Thus, the findings support the conclusion that multisensory temporal binding and gain are asymmetrically modulated as a function of distance from the observer, and specifies that this relationship is specific for temporally synchronous audiovisual stimulus presentations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00221-018-5274-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiovisual integration in depth: multisensory binding and gain as a function of distance

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…more accurate and precise localization, shorter response times and lower detection thresholds) than unisensory stimulation, when multisensory integration (MSI) occurs (Alais and Burr 2004;Ernst and Banks 2002;Hughes et al 1994;Lovelace et al 2003;Ross et al 2007;Spence 2010;Stevenson et al 2012;Van der Stoep et al 2015). Two main principles that govern MSI are temporal (Chen and Vroomen 2013;Colonius and Diederich 2004;Frens et al 1995;Meredith et al 1987;Van der Stoep et al 2015) and spatial proximity (Meredith and Stein 1986;Spence 2013;Stein and Stanford 2008;Stevenson et al 2012). When, for example, sound and light originate from approximately the same spatial location (within the spatial binding window) and at approximately the same time (within the temporal binding window), it will be more likely that auditory and visual input will be integrated, resulting in facilitation of perception.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor congruency and multisensory integration jointly facilitate visual information processing before movement execution

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention allows us to select important sensory information and enhances sensory information processing. Attention and our motor system are tightly coupled: attention is shifted to the target location before a goal-directed eye-or hand movement is executed. Congruent eye-hand movements to the same target can boost the effect of this pre-movement shift of attention. Moreover, visual information processing can be enhanced by, for example, auditory input presented in spatial and temporal proximity of visual input via multisensory integration (MSI). In this study, we investigated whether the combination of MSI and motor congruency can synergistically enhance visual information processing beyond what can be observed using motor congruency alone. Participants performed congruent eye-and hand movements during a 2-AFC visual discrimination task. The discrimination target was presented in the planning phase of the movements at the movement target location or a movement irrelevant location. Three conditions were compared: (1) a visual target without sound, (2) a visual target with sound spatially and temporally aligned (MSI) and (3) a visual target with sound temporally misaligned (no MSI). Performance was enhanced at the movement-relevant location when congruent motor actions and MSI coincide compared to the other conditions. Congruence in the motor system and MSI together therefore lead to enhanced sensory information processing beyond the effects of motor congruency alone, before a movement is executed. Such a synergy implies that the boost of attention previously observed for the independent factors is not at ceiling level, but can be increased even further when the right conditions are met.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

show abstract

“…head-turning) and multisensory integration. That said, it can be difficult to discriminate between the effects of crossmodal spatial attention and multisensory integration (see McDonald et al, 2001;and Van der Stoep et al, 2015b, on this theme). Intriguingly though, for those who are interested in this distinction, it has recently been suggested that attentional effects may show an asymmetry not present for multisensory integration (see Chen & Spence, 2017, for a review).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…without providing any information as to where that visual event is located in space; e.g. Diederich & Colonius, 2008;Los & Schut, 2008;Los & Van der Burg, 2013;Spence & Driver, 1997;Van der Stoep et al, 2015b). Additionally, however, the location of the auditory cue may itself indicate where the relevant visual event can be found.…”

Section: Using Spatially Predictive Auditory Cues To Direct Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to sounds from unseen locations: crossmodal attentional orienting in response to sounds presented from the rear

Spence

Lee

Stoep

2017

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, most of the research on spatial attention has focused on probing people's responses to stimuli presented in frontal space. That is, few researchers have attempted to assess what happens in the space that is currently unseen (essentially rear space). In a sense, then, 'out of sight' is, very much, 'out of mind'. In this review, we highlight what is presently known about the perception and processing of sensory stimuli (focusing on sounds) whose source is not currently visible. We briefly summarize known differences in the localizability of sounds presented from different locations in 3D space, and discuss the consequences for the crossmodal attentional and multisensory perceptual interactions taking place in various regions of space. The latest research now clearly shows that the kinds of crossmodal interactions that take place in rear space are very often different in kind from those that have been documented in frontal space. Developing a better understanding of how people respond to unseen sound sources in naturalistic environments by integrating findings emerging from multiple fields of research will likely lead to the design of better warning signals in the future. This review highlights the need for neuroscientists interested in spatial attention to spend more time researching what happens (in terms of the covert and overt crossmodal orienting of attention) in rear space.

show abstract

On the relative contributions of multisensory integration and crossmodal exogenous spatial attention to multisensory response enhancement

Cited by 40 publications

References 61 publications

Audiovisual integration in depth: multisensory binding and gain as a function of distance

Audiovisual integration in depth: multisensory binding and gain as a function of distance

Motor congruency and multisensory integration jointly facilitate visual information processing before movement execution

Responding to sounds from unseen locations: crossmodal attentional orienting in response to sounds presented from the rear

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About