Search

Failures in prospective memory (PM) - that is, the failure to remember intended future actions - can have adverse consequences. It is therefore important to study those processes that may help to minimize such cognitive failures. Although multisensory integration has been shown to enhance a wide variety of behaviors, including perception, learning, and memory, its effect on prospective memory, in particular, is largely unknown. In the present study, we investigated the effects of multisensory processing on two simultaneously-performed memory tasks: An ongoing 2- or 3-back working memory (WM) task (20% target ratio), and a PM task in which the participants had to respond to a rare predefined letter (8% target ratio). For PM trials, multisensory enhancement was observed for congruent multisensory signals; however, this effect did not generalize to the ongoing WM task. Participants were less likely to make errors for PM than for WM trials, thus suggesting that they may have biased their attention toward the PM task. Multisensory advantages on memory tasks, such as PM and WM, may be dependent on how attention resources are allocated across dual tasks.

We report four experiments on the speed of people's reactions to sensory stimulation while throwing and catching a basketball. Thirty participants participated in Experiment 1, split according to basketball expertise: none, intermediate (6years on average), or advanced (20years or more). The participants had to catch a bouncing basketball. The movement triggered a short tactile pulse in a tactor attached to their wrist to which they made a speeded vocal response (RT). The pulse could be presented either at rest, at two time-points during the reaching movement, or when the hand reached forward to catch the ball. The results indicated that participants responded more rapidly to vibrations on the moving hand relative to preparing or catching the ball, with expert athletes responding significantly faster than novices. In a second experiment, participants made a speeded vocal response to an auditory signal. As in Experiment 1, faster auditory RTs were observed when the hand was moving, as compared to the other time-points. In a third study, the participants responded to a pulse delivered at their resting hand at various time-points corresponding to the average timings of stimulation in Experiment 1. The results revealed comparable RTs across the tested time-points. In a final experiment, the participants made a vocal response to a pulse presented at various time-points while they were throwing the basketball. The results indicated faster tactile RTs while the ball was being thrown. These results are discussed with reference to the literature on goal-directed movements and in terms of current theories of attention and sensory suppression.

To date, crossmodal spatial cuing research has primarily investigated spatial attention modulated by the positioning of auditory cues, without addressing the question of the role played by sound parameters such as intensity change, waveform structure, or duration. Therefore in the present study, we investigated exogenous spatial cuing following the presentation of auditory cues having different intensity profiles (looming or receding), waveforms (triangular structured waveform or white noise), and durations (250 ms or 500 ms). Auditory cues were presented from one of four locations (front-left, front-right, rear-left, or rear-right). The participants had to make speeded elevation discrimination responses to visual targets presented from the front (on the left or right). The magnitude of the cuing effect was larger following the presentation of a structured looming auditory cue than a structured receding cue. On the other hand, there was no statistical difference between the magnitude of the cuing effect in the looming and in the receding intensity profiles when white noise cues were used. Such findings are consistent with previous reports. Furthermore, the magnitude of the cuing effect was larger when the cues were presented from the front than from the rear. On the contrary, other recent findings showed that the presentation of a 100 ms constant-intensity auditory cue exogenously oriented visual attention to the cued hemifield, regardless of whether the cues were presented from the front or rear. Therefore, the findings reported here demonstrated that sound parameters can modulate the exogenous orienting of crossmodal spatial attention.

A number of crossmodal associations have now been described in the context of food evaluation, such as between tastes or flavours and musical notes (Crisinel and Spence, 2010b). Here we extend these findings by presenting flavoured milk solutions of varying fat contents. The participants in the present study matched a series of milk samples to musical notes. They chose both the pitch and the class of instrument that they felt was most appropriate for each sample. Participants also rated various features of the samples, such as their pleasantness, bitterness, or familiarity. Consistent associations between flavours and both pitch and instruments were confirmed. However, fat content did not influence either the pitch or instrument chosen, although it did have an effect on pleasantness and intensity ratings. These results demonstrate that flavour-sound associations are not restricted to basic tastes and flavours presented individually, but are still present in the context of more complex food stimuli. The present study opens the way for further investigations into the nature and characteristics of crossmodal associations (or correspondences) between more complex stimuli, both in the auditory and gustatory/olfactory modalities. This novel approach could lead to new insights into the representation of chemosensory stimuli in humans.

Seeing one's own body (either directly or indirectly) can influence visuotactile crossmodal interactions. Recently, it has been shown that even viewing a simple line drawing of a hand can also modulate such crossmodal interactions, as if the picture of the hand somehow corresponds to (or primes) the participants' own hand. Alternatively, however, it could be argued that the modulatory effects of viewing the picture of a hand on visuotactile interactions might simply be attributed to cognitive processes such as the semantic referral to the relevant body part or to the orientation cues provided by the hand picture instead. In the present study, we evaluated these various different interpretations of the hand picture effect. Participants made speeded discrimination responses to the location of brief vibrotactile targets presented to either the tip or base of their forefinger, while trying to ignore simultaneously-presented visual distractors presented to either side of central fixation. We compared the modulatory effect of the picture of a hand with that seen when the visual distractors were presented next to words describing the tip and base of the forefinger (Experiment 1), or were superimposed over arrows which provided another kind of directional cue (Experiment 2). Tactile discrimination performance was modulated in the hand picture condition, but not in the word or arrow conditions. These results therefore suggest that visuotactile interactions are specifically modulated by the image of the hand rather than by cognitive cues such as simply semantic referral to the relevant body sites and/or any visual orientation cues provided by the picture of a hand.

Previous research has revealed that anticipating pain at a particular location of the body prioritizes somatosensory input presented there. The present study tested whether the spatial features of bodily threat are limited to the exact location of nociception. Participants judged which one of two tactile stimuli, presented to either hand, had been presented first, while occasionally experiencing a painful stimulus. The distance between the pain and tactile locations was manipulated. In Experiment 1, participants expected pain either proximal to one of the tactile stimuli (on the hand; near condition) or more distant on the same body part (arm; far condition). In Experiment 2, the painful stimulus was expected either proximal to one of the tactile stimuli (hand; near) or on a different body-part at the same body side (leg; far). The results revealed that in the near condition of both experiments, participants became aware of tactile stimuli presented to the “threatened” hand more quickly as compared to the “neutral” hand. Of particular interest, the data in the far conditions showed a similar prioritization effect when pain was expected at a different location of the same body part as well as when pain was expected at a different body part at the same body side. In this study, the encoding of spatial features of bodily threat was not limited to the exact location where pain was anticipated but rather generalized to the entire body part and even to different body parts at the same side of the body.

We report a study designed to investigate the extent to which speeded behavioral responses following tactile stimulation are influenced by differences in neural conduction latencies at different body sites and/or by the characteristics of the compatibility between the cue and effector. The results showed that it may not be particularly desirable to present tactile cues (e.g., warning signals) to an interface operator's feet if a speeded foot response is required, for even though such an arrangement maximizes the set-level compatibility between the stimulus and the response, it turns out that response latencies are primarily determined by conduction latencies through the peripheral nervous system.

Previous studies of multisensory integration have often stressed the beneficial effects that may arise when information concerning an event arrives via different sensory modalities at the same time, as, for example, exemplified by research on the redundant target effect (RTE). By contrast, studies of the Colavita visual dominance effect (e.g., [Colavita, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16 , 409–412]) highlight the inhibitory consequences of the competition between signals presented simultaneously in different sensory modalities instead. Although both the RTE and the Colavita effect are thought to occur at early sensory levels and the stimulus conditions under which they are typically observed are very similar, the interplay between these two opposing behavioural phenomena (facilitation vs. competition) has yet to be addressed empirically. We hypothesized that the dissociation may reflect two of the fundamentally different ways in which humans can perceive concurrent auditory and visual stimuli. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated both multisensory facilitation (RTE) and the Colavita visual dominance effect using exactly the same audiovisual displays, by simply changing the task from a speeded detection task to a speeded modality discrimination task. Meanwhile, in Experiment 2, the participants exhibited multisensory facilitation when responding to visual targets and multisensory inhibition when responding to auditory targets while keeping the task constant. These results therefore indicate that both multisensory facilitation and inhibition can be demonstrated in reaction to the same bimodal event.

The 'body schema' has traditionally been defined as a passively updated, proprioceptive representation of the body. However, recent work has suggested that body representations are more complex and flexible than previously thought. They may integrate current perceptual information from all sensory modalities, and can be extended to incorporate indirect representations of the body and functional portions of tools. In the present study, we investigate the source of a facilitatory effect of viewing the body on speeded visual discrimination reaction times. Participants responded to identical visual stimuli that varied only in their context: being presented on the participant's own body, on the experimenter's body, or in a neutral context. The stimuli were filmed and viewed in real-time on a projector screen. Careful controls for attention, biological saliency, and attribution confirmed that the facilitatory effect depends critically on participants attributing the context to a real body. An intermediate effect was observed when the stimuli were presented on another person's body, suggesting that the effect of viewing one's own body might represent a conjunction of an interpersonal body effect and an egocentric effect. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Vatakis, A. and Spence, C. (in press) [Crossmodal binding: Evaluating the ‘unity assumption’ using audiovisual speech stimuli. Perception &Psychophysics] recently demonstrated that when two briefly presented speech signals (one auditory and the other visual) refer to the same audiovisual speech event, people find it harder to judge their temporal order than when they refer to different speech events. Vatakis and Spence argued that the ‘unity assumption’ facilitated crossmodal binding on the former (matching) trials by means of a process of temporal ventriloquism. In the present study, we investigated whether the ‘unity assumption’ would also affect the binding of non-speech stimuli (video clips of object action or musical notes). The auditory and visual stimuli were presented at a range of stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) using the method of constant stimuli. Participants made unspeeded temporal order judgments (TOJs) regarding which modality stream had been presented first. The auditory and visual musical and object action stimuli were either matched (e.g., the sight of a note being played on a piano together with the corresponding sound) or else mismatched (e.g., the sight of a note being played on a piano together with the sound of a guitar string being plucked). However, in contrast to the results of Vatakis and Spence’s recent speech study, no significant difference in the accuracy of temporal discrimination performance for the matched versus mismatched video clips was observed. Reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.

In the present study, we examined whether the 'Mozart effect' would influence participants' temporal attention using a visual attentional blink (AB) task that provides a reliable measure of the temporal dynamics of visual attention. The 'Mozart effect' refers to the specific claim that listening to Mozart's Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major, K.448 can improve the performance in spatio-temporal tasks. Participants had to try and identify two target digits (in their correct order of presentation) presented amongst a stream of distractor letters in three different conditions (presented in separate blocks of trials): while listening to the Mozart sonata played normally, while listening to the same Mozart sonata played in reverse, and while in silence. The results showed that the participants were able to detect the second target (T2) significantly more accurately (given the correct detection of the first target, T1) in the AB stream when the Mozart sonata was played normally than in either of the other two conditions. Possible explanations for the differential effects of Mozart's music being played normally and in reverse and potential confounds in previous studies reporting a facilitatory 'Mozart effect' are discussed. Our results therefore provide the first empirical demonstration supporting the existence of a purely temporal component to the 'Mozart effect' using a non-spatial visual AB task.

Change blindness is the name given to people's inability to detect changes introduced between two consecutively-presented scenes when they are separated by a distractor that masks the transients that are typically associated with change. Change blindness has been reported within vision, audition, and touch, but has never before been investigated when successive patterns are presented to different sensory modalities. In the study reported here, we investigated change detection performance when the two to-be-compared stimulus patterns were presented in the same sensory modality (i.e., both visual or both tactile) and when one stimulus pattern was tactile while the other was presented visually or vice versa. The two to-be-compared patterns were presented consecutively, separated by an empty interval, or else separated by a masked interval. In the latter case, the masked interval could either be tactile or visual. The first experiment investigated visual-tactile and tactile-visual change detection performance. The results showed that in the absence of masking, participants detected changes in position accurately, despite the fact that the two to-be-compared displays were presented in different sensory modalities. Furthermore, when a mask was presented between the two to-be-compared displays, crossmodal change blindness was elicited no matter whether the mask was visual or tactile. The results of two further experiments showed that performance was better overall in the unimodal (visual or tactile) conditions than in the crossmodal conditions. These results suggest that certain of the processes underlying change blindness are multisensory in nature. We discuss these findings in relation to recent claims regarding the crossmodal nature of spatial attention.

We investigated the extent to which people can selectively ignore distracting vibrotactile information when performing a visual task. In Experiment 1, participants made speeded elevation discrimination responses (up vs. down) to a series of visual targets presented from one of two eccentricities on either side of central fixation, while simultaneously trying to ignore task-irrelevant vibrotactile distractors presented independently to the finger (up) vs. thumb (down) of either hand. Participants responded significantly more slowly, and somewhat less accurately, when the elevation of the vibrotactile distractor was incongruent with that of the visual target than when they were presented from the same (i.e., congruent) elevation. This crossmodal congruency effect was significantly larger when the visual and tactile stimuli appeared on the same side of space than when they appeared on different sides, although the relative eccentricity of the two stimuli within the hemifield (i.e., same vs. different) had little effect on performance. In Experiment 2, participants who crossed their hands over the midline showed a very different pattern of crossmodal congruency effects to participants who adopted an uncrossed hands posture. Our results suggest that both the relative external location and the initial hemispheric projection of the target and distractor stimuli contribute jointly to determining the magnitude of the crossmodal congruency effect when participants have to respond to vision and ignore touch.

This study examined the multisensory integration of visual and auditory motion information using a methodology designed to single out perceptual integration processes from post-perceptual influences. We assessed the threshold stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) at which the relative directions (same vs. different) of simultaneously presented visual and auditory apparent motion streams could no longer be discriminated (Experiment 1). This threshold was higher than the upper threshold for direction discrimination (left vs. right) of each individual modality when presented in isolation (Experiment 2). The poorer performance observed in bimodal displays was interpreted as a consequence of automatic multisensory integration of motion information. Experiment 3 supported this interpretation by ruling out task differences as the explanation for the higher threshold in Experiment 1. Together these data provide empirical support for the view that multisensory integration of motion signals can occur at a perceptual level.

The authors have discovered an error in Table 1 of their article ‘Attention and suppression affect tactile perception in reach-to-grasp movements’. The labels for the ‘Moving hand’ and ‘Resting hand’ should be switched, so as to refer to the appropriate data in the columns. The experimental RTs data summarized in the table are otherwise correct. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.