Temporal aspects of the visuotactile congruency effect

Shore, David I.; Barnes, Morgan; Spence, Charles

doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.09.001

Cited by 93 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All numerical values represent the mean and between-subject standard error. The results focused primarily on the RTs rather than errors, since it has been shown that RTs are more sensitive for the CCE (Pavani et al 2000;Aspell et al 2009;Shore et al 2006;Sengül et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They were instructed not to close their eyes and fixate on the central fixation cross. In each trial, a visual distractor stimulus was presented 100 ms before the vibrotactile stimulus (SOA 100 ms) (Shore et al 2006;Sengül et al 2012). Visual distractors were presented on the tip of each gripper's arm, matching the positions of vibrotactile stimuli on the participant's hands.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Force feedback facilitates multisensory integration during robotic tool use

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the first experiment it was found that tool-use training with force feedback facilitates multisensory integration of signals from the tool, as reflected in a stronger crossmodal congruency effect with the force feedback training compared to training without force feedback and to no training. The second experiment extends these findings by showing that training with realistic online force feedback resulted in a stronger crossmodal congruency effect compared to training in which force feedback was delayed. The present study highlights the importance of haptic information for multisensory integration and extends findings from classical tool-use studies to the domain of robotic tools. We argue that such crossmodal congruency effects are an objective measure of robotic tool integration and propose some potential applications in surgical robotics, robotic tools, and human-tool interaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Force feedback facilitates multisensory integration during robotic tool use

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…showing that the ways in which adults bind synchronously presented information across modalities (including vision and touch) often result in the perception of those events at a common location, even when that is not the case (e.g., Pavani, Spence, & Driver, 2000;Shore, Barnes, & Spence, 2006). If, as we are proposing, the preference for visual-tactile spatial incongruency does represent a novelty preference, this raises the possibility that an ability to process visual-tactile co-location is available even earlier in development.…”

Section: Visual-tactile Co-location In Infants 14mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of visual-tactile colocation in the first year of life.

Freier¹,

Mason²,

Bremner³

2016

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2 (bottom), mean inverse efficiency scores are shown, defined as the RT divided by the percentage of correct trials (Townsend & Ashby, 1983). This measure allows one to correct for possible speed-accuracy trade-offs in the data (Shore, Barnes, & Spence, 2006).…”

Section: Retrieval Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

“Wanted!” The effects of reward on face recognition: electrophysiological correlates

Marini

Marzi

Viggiano

2011

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to uncover the temporal dynamics of face recognition as a function of reward. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded during the encoding and the subsequent old/new memory test in response to faces that could be associated with a monetary reward. The behavioral results showed that faces associated with reward at both encoding and retrieval were recognized better than the unrewarded ones. ERP responses highlighted that successful encoding predictive of subsequent memory was greater for faces associated with reward than for faces without reward-driven motivational learning. At retrieval, an early positive-going component was elicited for potentially rewarded faces on frontal regions, while the occipito-temporal N170 component showed priming effects as a function of reward. Later on, larger centro-parietal ERP components, related to recognition memory, were found selectively for reward-associated faces. Remarkably, electrophysiological responses varied in a graded manner, with the largest amplitude yielded by faces with double reward, followed by faces associated with reward only at encoding. Taken together, the present data show that the processing of outcome expectations affects face structural encoding and increases memory efficiency, yielding a robust and sustained modulation over frontal and temporal areas where reward and memory mechanisms operate in conjunction.

show abstract

Temporal aspects of the visuotactile congruency effect

Cited by 93 publications

References 17 publications

Force feedback facilitates multisensory integration during robotic tool use

Force feedback facilitates multisensory integration during robotic tool use

Perception of visual-tactile colocation in the first year of life.

“Wanted!” The effects of reward on face recognition: electrophysiological correlates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About