Crossmodal attention

Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 245-253

  Driver, Jon ^a   Spence, Charles ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; BODY POSTURE; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NEUROBIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPRIOCEPTION; REVIEW; SELECTIVE ATTENTION; TOUCH; VISION;

EID: 0032053085     PISSN: 09594388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-4388(98)80147-5     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Wundt W. Grundzüge der Physiologischen Psychologie. Foundations of Physiological Psychology :1893;Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig.
2. Spence C, Driver J. On measuring selective attention to a specific sensory modality. Percept Psychophys. 59:1997;389-403 An extensive review of previous studies that attempted to measure the effects of attending to a particular sensory modality. The authors highlight the numerous confounds inherent in most previous studies. They then present modified cuing paradigms, which demonstrate significant behavioural effects of atttending to audition versus vision without these previous confounds. of outstanding interest.
3. Spence C, Driver J. Cross-modal links in attention between audition, vision, and touch: implications for interface design. Int J Cogn Ergonom. 1:1997;351-373.
4. Bonnel A-M, Hafter ER. Divided attention between simultaneous auditory and visual signals. Percept Psychophys. 60:1998;179-190 Behavioural measures of sensory threshold show that people can detect increments or decrements in auditory and visual pedestal stimuli without a divided-attention cost (as compared with attending to just one modality), but that discrimination of any such change (e.g. as an increment versus decrement) does produce costs of dividing attention between modalities. of special interest.
5. Eimer M, Schröger E. ERP effects of intermodal attention and cross-modal links in spatial attention. Psychophysiology. 1997.
6. Alho K, Woods DL, Algazi A. Processing of auditory stimuli during auditory and visual attention as revealed by event-related potentials. Psychophysiology. 31:1994;469-479.
7. Paus T, Zatorre RJ, Hofle N, Caramanos Z, Gotman J, Petrides M, Evans AC. Time-related changes in neural systems underlying attention and arousal during the performance of an auditory vigilance task. J Cogn Neurosci. 9:1997;392-408.
8. Shulman GL, Corbetta M, Buckner RL, Raichle ME, Fiez JA, Miezin FM, Peterson SE. Top-down modulation of early sensory cortex. Cereb Cortex. 7:1997;193-206 A meta-analysis of nine recent PET studies that challenges any simple account of pre-cortical (thalamic) reduction in neural activity for task-irrelevant unattended modalities, while finding that attention nevertheless can affect modality-specific responses in various ways. of special interest.
9. McCormick DA, Bal T. Sensory gating mechanisms of the thalamus. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 4:1994;550-556.
10. Frith CD, Friston KJ. The role of the thalamus in 'top down' modulation of attention to sound. Neuroimage. 4:1996;210-215 The authors propose that some discrepancies in results between ERP and PET studies on attention to a modality might be accounted for by the thalamus acting to synchronise activity at cortical levels, rather than simply modulating the overall level of signals reaching the cortex. They observe attentional modulation of cerebral blood flow, as a function of which modality is attended, only in the thalamus. of special interest.
11. Hanewinkel R, Ferstl R. Effects of modality shift and motor response shift on simple reaction time in schizophrenia patients. J Abnorm Psychol. 105:1996;459-463 Behavioural studies of schizophrenics, alcoholics and control subjects. The study illustrates the 'modality-shift effect' paradigm that has frequently been used for the study of putative attentional deficits in clinical populations, and separates effects attributable to changing stimulus modality from those attributable to changing the stimulus - response mapping. of special interest.
12. Godefroy O, Lhullier C, Rousseaux M. Non-spatial attention disorders in patients with frontal or posterior brain damage. Brain. 119:1996;191-202.
13. Sprengelmeyer R, Lange H, Hömberg V. The pattern of attention deficits in Huntington's disease. Brain. 118:1995;145-152.
14. Ciesielski KT, Knight JE, Prince RJ, Harris RJ, Handmaker SD. Event-related potentials in cross-modal divided attention in austism. Neuropsychologia. 33:1995;225-246.
15. Posner MI. Orienting of attention. Q J Exp Psychol. 32:1980;3-25.
16. Spence C, Driver J. Audiovisual links in endogenous covert spatial attention. J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept]. 22:1996;1005-1030 Seven experiments demonstrate crossmodal links between audition and vision in endogeneous covert orienting for the first time. Previous crossmodal studies on attention are reviewed, and various methodological issues discussed. of outstanding interest.
17. Spence C, Driver J. Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting. Percept Psychophys. 59:1997;1-22 Using peripheral, spatially nonpredictive cues, crossmodal links between hearing and vision for exogeneous attention are investigated. The results show that auditory cues attract both auditory and visual covert attention, whereas visual cues apparently have no effect on auditory attention provided that eye movements are prevented. of special interest.
18. Ward LM. Supramodal and modality-specific mechanisms for stimulus-driven shifts of auditory and visual attention. Can J Exp Psychol. 48:1994;242-259.
19. Kustov AA, Robinson DL. Shared neural control of attentional shifts and eye movements. Nature. 384:1996;74-77.
20. O'Leary DS, Andreasen NC, Hurtig RR, Torres IJ, Flashman LA, Kesler ML, Arndt SV, Cizadlo TJ, Ponto LL, Watkins GL, et al. Autidory and visual attention assessed with PET. Brain Lang. 1997.
21. Hillyard SA, Simpson GV, Woods DL, Van Voorhis S, Munte TF. Event-related brain potentials and selective attention to different modalities. Reinoso-Suarez F, Ajmone-Marson C. Cortical Integration. 1984;395-414 Raven Press, New York.
22. Driver J, Spence CJ. Spatial synergies between auditory and visual attention. Umiltà C, Moscovitch M. Attention and Performance, Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing. XV:1994;311-331 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
23. Duncan J, Martens S, Ward R. Restricted attentional capacity within but not between sensory modalities. Nature. 387:1997;808-810 This paper renews traditional claims for entirely independent attentional resources in audition and vision, with some compelling data. However, the results do show some cost of dividing attention between hearing and vision, and the study does not investigate any possible effects of auditory and visual events being presented from different locations. of outstanding interest.
24. Buchtel HA, Butter CM. Spatial attention shifts: implications for the role of polysensory mechanisms. Neuropsychologia. 26:1988;499-509.
25. Butter CM, Buchtel HA, Santucci R. Spatial attentional shifts: further evidence for the role of polysensory mechanisms using visual and tactile stimuli. Neuropsychologia. 27:1989;1231-1240.
26. Spence C, Nicholls MER, Gillespie N, Driver J. Cross-modal links in exogeneous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision. Percept Psychophys. 1997; Extends previous studies to reveal crossmodal links between all three modalities in exogenous covert attention. of special interest.
27. Driver J, Spence C. Crossmodal links in spatial attention. Proc Roy Soc Lond [Biol]. 1997; Provides a detailed account of recent behavioural research on crossmodal spatial attention in normal people, particularly under conditions of receptor misalignment across the senses. of special interest.
28. Driver J, Mattingley JB, Rorden C, Davis G. Extinction as a paradigm measure of attentional bias and restricted capacity following brain injury. Thier P, Karnath H-O. Parietal Lobe Contributions to Orientation in 3D Space. 1997;401-429 Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
29. Duncan J, Humphreys G, Ward R. Competitive brain activity in visual attention. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 7:1997;255-261.
30. Inhoff AW, Rafal RD, Posner MI. Bimodal extinction without cross-modal extinction. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 55:1992;36-39.
31. De Renzi E, Gentilini M, Pattacini F. Auditory extinction following hemisphere damage. Neuropsychologia. 22:1984;733-744.
32. Sieroff E, Michel F. Verbal visual extinction in right/left hemisphere lesion patients and the problem of lexical access. Neuropsychologia. 25:1987;907-918.
33. Vallar G, Rusconi ML, Bignamini L, Geminiani G, Perani D. Anatomical correlates of visual and tactile extinction in humans: a clinical CT scan study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 57:1994;464-470.
34. Mattingley JB, Driver J, Beschin N, Robertson IH. Attentional competition between modalities: extinction between touch and vision after right hemisphere damage. Neuropsychologia. 35:1997;867-880 First experimental confirmation of crossmodal extinction between vision and touch in three patients with right-hemisphere damage to parietal cortex, frontal cortex, and basal ganglia. of special interest.
35. di Pellegrino G, Làdavas E, Farné A. Seeing where your hands are. Nature. 388:1997;730 The authors report a right-hemisphere case who shows crossmodal extinction, with visual events extinguishing tactile events on the left hand. Importantly, the study suggests that such crossmodal extinction only occurs when the visual stimulus occurs near to the unstimulated right hand. This provides a possible explanation for why Inhoff et al. [30] failed to observe any crossmodal extinction. of outstanding interest.
36. Posner MI, Cohen Y. Components of visual orienting. Bouma H, Bouwhuis DG. Attention and Performance, Control of Language Processes. X:1984;531-556 Erbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
37. Spence C, Driver J. Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return. Percept Psychophys. 60:1998;125-139 This study shows IOR between successive auditory targets, and crossmodal IOR from vision to audition, and vice versa. A case is made for preferring paradigms that test for IOR between successive target events, rather than from a preceding cue upon a subsequent target, as in most previous studies. of special interest.
38. Tassinari G, Campara D. Consequences of covert orienting to non-informative stimuli of different modalities: a unitary mechanism? Neuropsychologia. 34:1996;235-245 A report finding IOR between successive tactile stimuli, and crossmodally between vision and touch, but using the cue - target procedure criticised in [37]. of special interest.
39. Reuter-Lorenz PA, Jha AP, Rosenquist JN. What is inhibited in inhibition of return? J Exp Psychol [Hum Percept]. 22:1996;367-378.
40. Spence C, Driver J. Inhibition of return following an auditory cue: the role of central reorienting events. Exp Brain Res. 118:1998;352-360.
41. Reuter-Lorenz PA, Rosenquist JN. Auditory cues and inhibition of return: the importance of oculomotor activation. Exp Brain Res. 112:1996;119-126.
42. Stein BE, Meredith MA. The Merging of the Senses. 1993;MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
43. Graziano MSA, Gross CG. Multiple pathways for processing visual space. Innui T, McClelland JL. Attention and Performance, Information Integration in Perception and Communication. XVI:1996;181-207 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
44. Anderson RA, Snyder LH, Bradley DC, Xing J. Multimodal representation of space in the posterior parietal cortex and its use in planning movements. Annu Rev Neurosci. 20:1997;303-330 Excellent review of recent studies on multimodal interactions in the monkey posterior parietal cortex. of outstanding interest.
45. Groh JM, Sparks DL. Saccades to somatosensory targets. 3. Eye-position dependent somatosensory activity in primate superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol. 75:1996;439-453 Single-cell studies of tactile responses in the superior colliculus in relation to current eye and body posture, illustrating the crossmodal remapping problem at the level of single cells, and relating to spatial orienting behaviour. of outstanding interest.
46. Hikosaka O, Miyauchi S, Takeichi H, Shimojo S. Multimodal spatial attention visualized by motion illusion. Innui T, McClelland JL. Attention and Performance, Information Integration in Perception and Communication. XVI:1996;237-261 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
47. Mazzoni P, Bracewell RM, Barash S, Anderson RA. Spatially tuned auditory responses in area LIP of macaques performing delayed memory saccades to acoustic targets. J Neurophysiol. 75:1996;1233-1241.
48. Stricanne B, Anderson RA, Mazzoni P. Eye-centred, head-centered, and intermediate coding of remembered sound locations in areas LIP. J Neurophysiol. 76:1996;2071-2076 Single-cell study reporting that multiple representational frameworks relating the location of auditory targets to current gaze position can be demonstrated within the same neural area. of special interest.
49. Driver J. Enhancement of selective listening by illusory mislocation of speech sounds due to lip-reading. Nature. 381:1996;66-68 Study of selective listening while lip movements are visible, which suggests for the first time that some crossmodal interactions (specifically, visual biasing of auditory localisation) can take place before auditory attentional selection is complete. of special interest.
50. Bertelson P. Starting from the ventriloquist: the perception of multimodal events. Sabourin M, Craik FIM, Robert M. Advances in Psychological Science, Biological and Cognitive Aspects. 1:1997;Psychological Press, Hove, UK.
51. Treisman A. The binding problem. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 6:1996;171-178.
52. Driver J, Grossenbacher PG. Multimodal spatial constraints on tactile selective attention. Innui T, McClelland JL. Attention and Performances, Information Integration in Perception and Communications. XVI:1996;209-235 MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
53. Thier P, Karnath H-O. Parietal Lobe Contributions to Orientation in 3-D Space. 1997;Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
54. Calamaro N, Soroker N, Myslobodsky MS. False recovery from auditory hemineglect produced by source misattribution of auditory stimuli (the ventriloquist effect). Restorative Neurol Neurosci. 7:1995;151-156.
55. Pizzamiglio L, Vallar G, Doricchi F. Gravity and hemineglect. Neuroreport. 7:1995;370-371.
56. Wallace MT, Stein BE. Cross-modal synthesis in the midbrain depends on input from association cortex. J Neurophysiol. 71:1994;429-432.
57. Wilkinson LK, Meredith MA, Stein BE. The role of anterior ectosylvian cortex in cross-modality orientation and approach behavior. Exp Brain Res. 112:1996;1-10 This paper highlights the importance of cortical structures in modulating crossmodal orienting behaviour that was previously associated with the superior colliculus. Further work by this group (see [56]) shows how cortical inputs modulate neural responses of the colliculus, in a crossmodal manner. of outstanding interest.
58. Pouget A, Sejinowski TJ. Spatial transformation in the parietal cortex using basis functions. J Cogn Neurosci. 9:1997;222-237.