Intermodal event files: Integrating features across vision, audition, taction, and action

Psychological Research

Volumn 73, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 674-684

  Zmigrod, Sharon ^a   Spapé, Michiel ^a   Hommel, Bernhard ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLOR VISION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TIME; TOUCH; VIBRATION; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PITCH PERCEPTION; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; TIME FACTORS; TOUCH PERCEPTION; VIBRATION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77952142960     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-008-0163-5     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Allport, D. A., Tipper, S. P., & Chmiel, N. R. J. (1985). Perceptual integration and postcategorical Wltering. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention & performance XI (pp. 107-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Bertelson, P., Vroomen, J., de Gelder, B., & Driver, J. (2000). The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of deliberate visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 321-332.
3. Colzato, L. S., Raffone, A., & Hommel, B. (2006). What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 705-716.
4. Dutzi, I. B., & Hommel, B. (2008). The microgenesis of action-effect binding Psychological Research.
5. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 229-240.
6. Found, A., & Müller, H. J. (1996). Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a 'dimension weighting' account. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 88-101.
7. Goldstein, E. B. (2007) (Ed.). Sensation and perception (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
8. Hall, M. D., Pastore, R. E., Acker, B. E., & Huang, W. (2000). Evidence for auditory feature integration with spatially distributed items. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1243-1257.
9. Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280-290.
10. Hommel, B. (1998). Event Wles: evidences for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.
11. Hommel, B. (2004). Event Wles: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500.
12. Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event Wle need? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1067-1082.
13. Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483-521.
14. Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2008). When an object is more than a binding of its features: Evidence for two mechanisms of visual feature integration. Visual Cognition.
15. Hommel, B., Memelink, J., Zmigrod, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2008). How information of relevant dimension control the creation and retrieval of feature-response binding, under revision.
16. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849-937.
17. Hötting, K., & Röder, B. (2004). Hearing cheats touch, but less in congenitally blind than in sighted individuals. Psychological Science, 15, 60-64.
18. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object Wles: Object specific information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.
19. Leboe, J. P., Mondor, T. A., & Leboe, L. C. (2006). Feature mismatch effects in auditory negative priming: Interference as dependent on salient aspects of prior episodes. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 897-910.
20. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746-748.
21. Mondor, T. A., Hurlburt, J., & Thorne, L. (2003). Categorizing sounds by pitch: Effects of stimulus similarity and response repetition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 107-114.
22. Posner, M. I., Nissen, J. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157-171.
23. Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408, 788.
24. Sherrick, C. (1985). A scale for rate of tactual vibration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78, 78-83.
25. Takegata, R., Brattico, E., Tervaniemi, M., Varyagina, O., Näätänen, R., & Winkler, I. (2005). Preattentive representation of feature conjunctions for concurrent spatially distributed audition objects. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 169-179.
26. Treisman, A. M. (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 171-178.
27. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
28. Van Erp, J. B. F., & Spapé, M. M. (2003). Distilling the underlying dimensions of tactile melodies (pp. 111-120). Dublin, Ireland: Eurohaptics 2003 proceedings.
29. Vroomen, J., Bertelson, P., & de Gelder, B. (2001). The ventriloquist effect does not depend on the direction of automatic visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 651-659.
30. Wallace, M. T., Carriere, B. N., Perrault, T. J., Jr, Vaughan, J. W., & Stein, B. E. (2006). The development of cortical multisensory integration. Journal of Neuroscience., 26, 11844-11849.
31. Zmigrod, S., & Hommel, B. (2008). Auditory Event Files: Integrating auditory perception and action planning. Perception & Psychophysics.