Assessing the effects of audiovisual semantic congruency on the perception of a bistable figure

Consciousness and Cognition

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 775-787

  Hsiao, Jhih Yun ^a   Chen, Yi Chuan ^b,c   Spence, Charles ^b   Yeh, Su Ling ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attention; Bistable perception; Crossmodal semantic congruency; Fixation; Visual consciousness

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONSCIOUSNESS; HEARING; HUMAN; VISION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AWARENESS; HUMANS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; SEMANTICS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84862782554     PISSN: 10538100     EISSN: 10902376     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2012.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Balcetis E., Dale R. Conceptual set as a top-down constraint on visual object identification. Perception 2007, 36:581-595.
2. Boring E.G. A new ambiguous figure. American Journal of Psychology 1930, 42:444-445.
3. The handbook of multisensory processing 2004, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. G.A. Calvert, C. Spence, B.E. Stein (Eds.).
4. Chastain G., Burnham C.A. The first glimpse determines the perception of an ambiguous figure. Perception & Psychophysics 1975, 17:221-224.
5. Chen Y.-C., Spence C. When hearing the bark helps to identify the dog: Semantically-congruent sounds modulate the identification of masked pictures. Cognition 2010, 114:389-404.
6. Chen Y.-C., Yeh S.-L., Spence C. Crossmodal constraints on human perceptual awareness: Auditory semantic modulation of binocular rivalry. Frontiers in Psychology 2011, 2:212. 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00212.
7. Daelli V., van Rijsbergen N.J., Treves A. How recent experience affects the perception of ambiguous objects. Brain Research 2010, 1322:81-91.
8. Ernst M.O. Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch. Journal of Vision 2007, 7, 7:1-14.
9. Feist M., Gentner D. Spatial language influences memory for spatial scenes. Memory & Cognition 2007, 35:283-296.
10. Gale A.G., Findlay J.M. Eye movement patterns in viewing ambiguous figures. Eye movements and psychological functions: International views 1983, 145-168. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ. R. Groner (Ed.).
11. Garcia-Perez M.A. Visual inhomogeneity and eye movements in multistable perception. Perception & Psychophysics 1989, 46:397-400.
12. Goolkasian P., Woodberry C. Priming effects with ambiguous figures. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2010, 72:168-178.
13. Hupé J.M., Joffo L.M., Pressnitzer D. Bistability for audiovisual stimuli: Perceptual decision is modality specific. Journal of Vision 2008, 8, 1:1-15.
14. Iordanescu L., Grabowecky M., Franconeri S., Theeuwes J., Suzuki S. Characteristic sounds make you look at target objects more quickly. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2010, 72:1736-1741.
15. Kim C.Y., Blake R. Psychophysical magic: Rendering the visible 'invisible'. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9:381-388.
16. Koch C., Tsuchiya N. Attention and consciousness: Two distinct brain processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2007, 11:16-22.
17. Leopold D.A., Logothetis N.K. Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys' percepts during binocular rivalry. Nature 1996, 379:549-553.
18. Long G.M., Toppino T.C. Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin 2004, 130:748-768.
19. Meng M., Tong F. Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision 2004, 4:539-551.
20. Necker L.A. Observations on an optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid. Philosophical Magazine 1932, 1:329-337.
21. Noest A.J., van Ee R., Nijs M.M., van Wezel R.J.A. Percept-choice sequences driven by interrupted ambiguous stimuli: A low-level neural model. Journal of Vision 2007, 7, 10:1-14.
22. Schneider T.R., Engel A.K., Debener S. Multisensory identification of natural objects in a two-way crossmodal priming paradigm. Experimental Psychology 2008, 55:121-132.
23. Shams L., Beierholm U.R. Causal inference in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2010, 14:425-432.
24. Smith E.L., Grabowecky M., Suzuki S. Auditory-visual crossmodal integration in perception of face gender. Current Biology 2007, 17:1680-1685.
25. Spence C. Audiovisual multisensory integration. Acoustical Science and Technology 2007, 28:61-70.
26. Talsma D., Senkowski D., Soto-Faraco S., Woldorff M.G. The multifaceted interplay between attention and multisensory integration. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2010, 14:400-410.
27. Tong F., Meng M., Blake R. Neural bases of binocular rivalry. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10:502-511.
28. van Ee R., van Dam L.C.J., Brouwer G.J. Voluntary control and the dynamics of perceptual bi-stability. Vision Research 2005, 45:41-55.
29. Vicholkovska A. Illusions of reversible perspective. Psychological Review 1906, 13:276-290.
30. Washburn M.F., Gillette A. Motor factors in voluntary control of cube perspective fluctuations and retinal rivalry fluctuations. American Journal of Psychology 1933, 45:315-319.
31. Welch R.B., Warren D.H. Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin 1980, 88:638-667.