Switching attention between modalities: Further evidence for visual dominance

Psychological Research

Volumn 74, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 255-267

  Lukas, Sarah ^a   Philipp, Andrea M ^a   Koch, Iring ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HEARING; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HEARING; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION; VISION, OCULAR; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77950298612     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-009-0246-y     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Aschersleben, G., & Bertelson, P. (2003). Temporal ventriloquism: crossmodal interaction on the time dimension. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 50, 157-163. doi: 10. 1016/S0167-8760(03)00131-4.
3. Bertelson, P., & Radeau, M. (1981). Cross-modal bias and perceptual fusion with auditory-visual spatial discordance. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 578-584.
4. Bryck, R., & Mayr, U. (2008). Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 128-134. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 15. 1. 128.
5. Choe, C. S., Welch, R. B., Gilford, R. M., & Juola, J. F. (1975). The "ventriloquist effect": visual dominance or response bias? Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 55-60.
6. Cohen, R., & Rist, F. (1992). The modality shift effect. Further explorations at the crossroads. In D. Friedman & G. E. Bruder (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Psychophysiology and experimental psychopathology: A tribute to Samuel Zutton (Vol. 658, pp. 163-181). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
7. Colavita, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 409-412.
8. Egeth, H. E., & Sager, L. C. (1977). On the locus if visual dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 77-86.
9. Egner, T., Delano, M., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. NeuroImage, 35, 940-948. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2006. 11. 061.
10. Gibson, J. J. (1933). Adaption, after-effect, and contrast in the perception of curved lines. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 1-31. doi: 10. 1037/h0074626.
11. Harvey, N. (1980). Non-informative effects of stimuli functioning as cues. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 413-425. doi: 10. 1080/14640748008401835.
12. Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291-345. doi: 10. 1016/j. cogpsych. 2005. 11. 001.
13. Hohnsbein, J., Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1991). Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. I. Simple and choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 78, 438-446. doi: 10. 1016/0013-4694(91)90061-8.
14. Hommel, B. (1997). Interactions between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 59, 248-260. doi: 10. 1007/BF00439302.
15. Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Advances in psychology: Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 743-777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
16. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap. Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 97. 2. 253.
17. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
18. Meiran, N. (2008). The dual implication of dual affordance. Stimulus-task binding and attentional focus changing during task preparation. Experimental Psychology, 55, 252-260. doi: 10. 1027/1618-3169. 55. 4. 251.
19. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202. doi: 10. 1146/annurev. neuro. 24. 1. 167.
20. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140. doi: 10. 1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.
21. Notebaert, W., & Soetens, E. (2003). Irrelevant auditory attention shifts prime corresponding responses. Psychological Research, 67, 253-260. doi: 10. 1007/s00426-002-0126-1.
22. Pick, H. L., Warren, D. H., & Hay, J. C. (1969). Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 203-205.
23. Posner, M. I. (1982). Cumulative development and attentional theory. The American Psychologist, 37, 168-179. doi: 10. 1037/0003-066X. 37. 2. 168.
24. Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157-171. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 83. 2. 157.
25. Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (1998). Lateralized warning tones produce typical irrelevant-location effects on choice reactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 124-129.
26. Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2003). Display-control arrangement correspondence and logical recoding in the Hedge and Marsh reversal of the Simon effect. Acta Psychologica, 112, 259-278. doi: 10. 1016/S0001-6918(02)00125-7.
27. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
28. Quinlan, P. T., & Hill, N. I. (1999). Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 375-384.
29. Ragot, R., Cave, C., & Fano, M. (1988). Reciprocal effects of visual and auditory stimuli in a spatial compatibility situation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 350-352.
30. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 124, 207-231. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 124. 2. 207.
31. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408, 788. doi: 10. 1038/35048669.
32. Simon, J. R., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Effects of an irrelevant auditory stimulus on visual choice-reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 272-274. doi: 10. 1037/h0029961.
33. Sinnett, S., Spence, C., & Soto-Faraco, S. (2007). Visual dominance and attention: the Colavita effect revisited. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 673-686.
34. Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1997). On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 389-403.
35. Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D'Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality congruence on dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 403-561. doi: 10. 1007/s00426-005-0013-7.
36. Sutton, S., & Zubin, J. (1965). Effect of sequence on reaction time in schizophrenia. In A. T. Welford & J. E. Birren (Eds.), Behavior, aging, and the nervous system (pp. 562-579). Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.
37. Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltá, C. (2002). Cross-modal re-mapping influences the Simon effect. Memory & Cognition, 30, 18-23.
38. van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & van der Helden, J. (2006). Failure of the extended contingent attentional capture account in multimodal settings. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 255-267. doi: 10. 2478/v10053-008-0060-x.
39. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response-code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360. doi: 10. 1037/h0030892.
40. Ward, L. M. (1994). Supramodal and modality-specific mechanisms for stimulus-driven shifts of auditory and visual attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 242-259. doi: 10. 1037/1196-1961. 48. 2. 242.
41. Ward, L. M., McDonald, J. J., & Lin, D. (2000). On asymmetries in cross-modal spatial attention orienting. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1258-1264.
42. Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638-667. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 88. 3. 638.
43. Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1986). Intersensory interactions. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 1. Sensory processes and perception (pp. 25. 1-25. 36). New York: Wiley.
44. Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2008). The impact of stimulus-specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks. Psychological Research, 72, 425-432. doi: 10. 1007/s00426-007-0117-3.
45. Wühr, P., Biebl, R., Umiltà, C., & Müsseler, J. (2009). Perceptual and attentional factors in encoding irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 73, 350-363.
46. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 29, 455-469. doi: 10. 1037/0096-1523. 29. 2. 455.