Somatosensory prior entry

Yates, Mark; Nicholls, Michael E. R.

doi:10.3758/app.71.4.847

Cited by 32 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Exogenous orienting results in faster responses and improved accuracy when participants respond to auditory, visual and tactile targets presented at cued as compared to uncued locations, and to genuine improvements in perceptual sensitivity (as typically demonstrated by an increase in d' at the cued location; McDonald et al, 2000; though see also Prinzmetal et al, 2005a,b). Exogenous orienting also results in the 'prior entry' of stimuli presented from the cued location to awareness (Lupiánez et al, 1999;McDonald et al, 2005;Spence, 2008a, 2009;Van der Burg et al, 2008;Yates and Nicholls, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…While the majority of this work has tended to focus on the capture of spatial attention by visual cues (see Ward, 1994, 2008), an increasing number of studies have now started to investigate the attention-capturing properties of auditory (e.g., Spence and Driver, 1994; and tactile cues as well (e.g., Ho et al, , 2006Scott and Gray, 2008;Spence and McGlone, 2001;Yates and Nicholls, 2009). The evidence currently shows that spatially nonpredictive visual, auditory and tactile cues are all capable of exogenously capturing a person's spatial attention (see Wright and Ward, 2008, for reviews).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Capturing spatial attention with multisensory cues: A review

Spence

Santangelo

2009

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing spatial attention with multisensory cues: A review

Spence

Santangelo

2009

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…tactile [21][22][23][24][25][26] and auditory cues [27][28][29][30]. For example, a recent study by [30] showed that a lateral auditory cue modulated the emergence of a lateral affordance effect that has been previously repeatedly shown to emerge from visual perception of manipulable objects.…”

Section: Multimodal Attention and Syntactic Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Motor (But Not Auditory) Attention Affects Syntactic Choice

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the determinants of syntactic choice in sentence production is a salient topic in psycholinguistics. Existing evidence suggests that syntactic choice results from an interplay between linguistic and non-linguistic factors, and a speaker's attention to the elements of a described event represents one such factor. Whereas multimodal accounts of attention suggest a role for different modalities in this process, existing studies examining attention effects in syntactic choice are primarily based on visual cueing paradigms. Hence, it remains unclear whether attentional effects on syntactic choice are limited to the visual modality or are indeed more general. This issue is addressed by the current study. Native English participants viewed and described line drawings of simple transitive events while their attention was directed to the location of the agent or the patient of the depicted event by means of either an auditory (monaural beep) or a motor (unilateral key press) lateral cue. Our results show an effect of cue location, with participants producing more passive-voice descriptions in the patient-cued conditions. Crucially, this cue location effect emerged in the motor-cue but not (or substantially less so) in the auditory-cue condition, as confirmed by a reliable interaction between cue location (agent vs. patient) and cue type (auditory vs. motor). Our data suggest that attentional effects on the speaker's syntactic choices are modality-specific and limited to the visual and motor, but not the auditory, domain.

show abstract

“…The speeding-up of perceptual, that is, sensory processing as an effect of attention was intensively investigated for more than a hundred years with various paradigms in different sensory modalities. However, evidence supporting the existence of the prior-entry effect, to date, is rather mixed (Di Russo and Spinelli, 1999;McDonald et al, 2005;Schneider and Bavelier, 2003;Schuller, and Rossion, 2001;Seibold et al, 2011;Shore et al, 2001;Spence et al, 2001;Vibell et al, 2007;Yates, and Nicholls, 2009;Zampini et al, 2005; for summary, see Spence, and Parise, 2010). Due to its superior temporal resolution, the method of event related brain potentials (ERPs) is a suitable choice for the investigation of changes in processing speed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%