视觉工作记忆负载对听觉偏差干扰效应的调控：来自不同外周提示线索的证据

采用线索提示和视听Oddball结合的实验设计, 通过四个实验探讨了外周视线索下视觉工作记忆负载对听觉偏差干扰效应的调控作用。结果表明：(1)操作外周视线索有效性为50%的条件下, 视觉工作记忆负载的增加使得原本抑制无关声音的过程失败, 因此出现了显著的听觉偏差干扰效应; (2)操作外周视线索有效性为80%的条件下, 发现有策略性的注意定向消耗了注意资源, 无视觉工作记忆负载的情况下同样出现听觉偏差干扰, 并且随着工作记忆负载增加偏差干扰效应增强。研究说明视觉工作记忆负载对听觉偏差干扰的调控是有条件性的, 当来自不同感觉通道的无关刺激与目标的加工过程存在重叠时, 视觉工作记忆负载的增加使得听觉偏差干扰效应增强而不是减弱。     

双通道分配性注意对视听觉返回抑制的影响

本研究基于线索-靶子范式, 操纵目标刺激类型(视觉、听觉、视听觉)与线索有效性(有效线索、中性条件、无效线索)两个自变量, 通过3个实验来考察双通道分配性注意对视听觉返回抑制(inhibition of return, IOR)的影响。实验1 (听觉刺激呈现在左/右侧)结果发现, 在双通道分配性注意条件下, 视觉目标产生显著IOR效应, 而视听觉目标没有产生IOR效应; 实验2 (听觉刺激呈现在左/右侧)与实验3 (听觉刺激呈现在中央)结果发现, 在视觉通道选择性注意条件下, 视觉与视听觉目标均产生显著IOR效应但二者无显著差异。结果表明：双通道分配性注意减弱视听觉IOR效应。     

认知控制在工作记忆表征引导注意中的作用:来自眼动的证据

研究同时采用首次注视点百分率与行为反应时指标,探讨了认知控制在无关工作记忆表征引导视觉注意选择过程中的作用。实验1发现:当视觉搜索容易时,首次注视点百分率和反应时指标都出现了注意引导效应;而当视觉搜索困难时,在反映早期注意定向的首次注视点百分率指标上,搜索快的被试组的注意引导效应显著大于搜索慢的被试组,而在行为反应时指标上,搜索快的被试组表现出注意引导效应,但搜索慢的被试组则表现出相反的注意拒绝效应。实验2发现当采用更为突显的靶子刺激时,首次注视点百分率指标上表现出的注意引导效应并未受到视觉搜索靶子显著性的影响,甚至还表现出一定的优先性。这些结果表明认知控制在工作记忆表征引导视觉注意的过程中所起的作用是动态变化的,视觉搜索早期注意定向阶段的注意引导效应比较稳健,认知控制只能减弱其效应的量值,而在随后的视觉搜索过程中,当视觉搜索比较缓慢时,认知控制可能会将注意引导效应反转为相反的注意拒绝效应。     

跨通道语义启动对视觉注意的影响

采用生活中的真实客体,我们考察了跨通道语义相关性对视觉注意的影响以及跨通道促进的时程。结合启动范式和点探测范式,实验1发现在听觉启动600毫秒后,被试对高相关视觉刺激的反应比对低相关刺激的反应更快,而在视觉启动下没有发现启动效应。实验2发现在启动刺激呈现900毫秒后跨通道启动效应消失。我们的研究证明了基于先前经验的视、听语义相关能够促进视觉的选择性注意。     

不同类型的知觉刺激对语言理解的影响

采用知觉负载范式探讨知觉刺激对语言理解的影响。实验1考察被试在加工听觉概念和视觉概念时的表征形式。实验2进一步探讨在同一通道内部,形状概念和视觉概念的表征形式。实验1发现,在进行语言理解时,如果存在听知觉负荷,加工语言中的听觉信息时会变慢。如果存在视知觉负荷,加工语言中的视觉信息时错误率会增加。实验2发现,在涉及视觉信息的语言理解中,颜色知觉负荷产生了广泛的影响,而形状知觉负荷没有表现出这种效应。总的实验结果表明,不同类型的知觉刺激对语言理解产生了不同的影响。语言理解中存在着模态化和非模态化两种不同的加工模式。     

内外源性空间注意对多感觉整合的影响

本文采用内-外源性空间线索靶子范式, 操控内源性线索有效性(有效线索、无效线索)、外源性线索有效性(有效线索、无效线索)、目标刺激类型(视觉刺激、听觉刺激、视听觉刺激)三个自变量。通过两个不同任务难度的实验(实验1: 简单定位任务; 实验2: 复杂辨别任务)来考察内外源性空间注意对多感觉整合的影响。两个实验结果均发现外源性空间注意显著减弱了多感觉整合效应, 内源性空间注意没有显著增强多感觉整合效应; 实验2中还发现了内源性空间注意会对外源性空间注意减弱多感觉整合效应产生影响。结果表明, 与内源性空间注意不同, 外源性空间注意对多感觉整合的影响不易受任务难度的调控; 当任务较难时内源性空间注意会影响外源性空间注意减弱多感觉整合效应的过程。由此推测, 内外源性空间注意对多感觉整合的调节并非彼此独立、而是相互影响的。     

节律性时间期待效应不受注意控制的影响

采用双任务范式探讨当听觉节律刺激序列以较慢速度呈现时,其诱导产生的时间期待效应是否受到同时进行的视觉工作记忆任务的影响。结果发现,无论目标刺激是呈现在听觉通道还是视觉通道,双任务和单任务条件下目标刺激出现在规律听觉刺激序列之后被试的反应时均快于目标出现在非规律听觉刺激序列之后,即节律性刺激序列诱导产生的时间期待效应不受工作记忆任务的影响。该结果表明节律性时间期待效应不受注意控制的影响。     

内源性空间线索有效性对视听觉整合的影响

采用内源性线索-靶子范式, 操纵线索类型(有效线索、无效线索)和靶刺激通道类型(视觉刺激、听觉刺激、视听觉刺激)两个自变量, 通过两个实验, 分别设置50%和80%两种内源性空间线索有效性来考察不同空间线索有效性条件下内源性空间注意对视听觉整合的影响。结果发现, 当线索有效性为50%时(实验1), 有效线索位置和无效线索位置的视听觉整合效应没有显著差异; 当线索有效性为80%时(实验2), 有效线索位置的视听觉整合效应显著大于无效线索位置的视听觉整合效应。结果表明, 线索有效性不同时, 内源性空间注意对视听觉整合产生了不同的影响, 高线索有效性条件下内源性空间注意能够促进视听觉整合效应。     

数量空间表征的特点:跨视听通道下的SNARC效应

从跨通道的角度入手,采用大小比较任务,对视听单通道及跨通道下数量空间表征的特点及表征过程中的相互影响进行探讨。结果发现,视觉通道和听觉通道均存在SNARC效应;在跨通道任务下,无论启动通道是视觉还是听觉通道,都表现出,当启动通道的数量大小信息与主通道的数量大小一致或无关时,主通道的SNARC效应没有显著变化;但当启动通道的数量大小信息与主通道不一致时,主通道的SNARC效应受到显著影响,表现为降低或消失。这进一步证明了SNARC效应受情境影响的特点,并发现在进行跨通道数量空间表征时,听觉通道的数量信息对视觉通道下的数量空间表征的影响大于视觉通道的数量信息对听觉通道下的数量空间表征的影响。     

视听时、空一致性对Pip-and-Pop效应的影响

多感觉整合遵循空间原则和时间原则, 有研究表明Pip-and-Pop效应产生的原因是多感觉整合, 那么Pip-and-Pop效应是否同样遵循空间原则和时间原则呢?本研究采用动态视觉搜索范式, 通过两个眼动实验考察空间一致性(实验1)和时间一致性(实验2)对Pip-and-Pop效应的影响。结果发现：(1)当视觉目标颜色变化伴随一个同侧的听觉刺激时所产生的Pip-and-Pop效应最大, 对侧条件没有发现Pip-and-Pop效应。(2)视听刺激同时呈现所产生的Pip-and-Pop效应最大, 随视听刺激呈现时间间隔的增加Pip-and-Pop效应逐渐减弱直至消失。结果表明, 视听时、空一致性对Pip-and-Pop效应具有调节作用, 这为多感觉整合在产生Pip-and-Pop效应中的作用提供了证据。     

视听跨通道信息的整合与冲突控制

多通道信息交互是指来自某个感觉通道的信息与另一感觉通道的信息相互作用、相互影响的一系列加工过程。主要包括两个方面：一是不同感觉通道的输入如何整合；二是跨通道信息的冲突控制。本文综述了视听跨通道信息整合与冲突控制的行为心理机制和神经机制，探讨了注意对视听信息整合与冲突控制的影响。未来需探究视听跨通道信息加工的脑网络机制，考察特殊群体的跨通道整合和冲突控制以帮助揭示其认知和社会功能障碍的机制。     

Multisensory processing in the redundant-target effect: a behavioral and event-related potential study

Participants respond more quickly to two simultaneously presented target stimuli of two different modalities (redundant targets) than would be predicted from their reaction times to the unimodal targets. To examine the neural correlates of this redundant-target effect, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to auditory, visual, and bimodal standard and target stimuli presented at two locations (left and right of central fixation). Bimodal stimuli were combinations of two standards, two targets, or a standard and a target, presented either from the same or from different locations. Responses generally were faster for bimodal stimuli than for unimodal stimuli and were faster for spatially congruent than for spatially incongruent bimodal events. ERPs to spatially congruent and spatially incongruent bimodal stimuli started to differ over the parietal cortex as early as 160 msec after stimulus onset. The present study suggests that hearing and seeing interact at sensory-processing stages by matching spatial information across modalities.     

The interplay of bottom-up and top-down mechanisms in visual guidance during object naming

An ongoing issue in visual cognition concerns the roles played by low- and high-level information in guiding visual attention, with current research remaining inconclusive about the interaction between the two. In this study, we bring fresh evidence into this long-standing debate by investigating visual saliency and contextual congruency during object naming (Experiment 1), a task in which visual processing interacts with language processing. We then compare the results of this experiment to data of a memorization task using the same stimuli (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, we find that both saliency and congruency influence visual and naming responses and interact with linguistic factors. In particular, incongruent objects are fixated later and less often than congruent ones. However, saliency is a significant predictor of object naming, with salient objects being named earlier in a trial. Furthermore, the saliency and congruency of a named object interact with the lexical frequency of the associated word and mediate the time-course of fixations at naming. In Experiment 2, we find a similar overall pattern in the eye-movement responses, but only the congruency of the target is a significant predictor, with incongruent targets fixated less often than congruent targets. Crucially, this finding contrasts with claims in the literature that incongruent objects are more informative than congruent objects by deviating from scene context and hence need a longer processing. Overall, this study suggests that different sources of information are interactively used to guide visual attention on the targets to be named and raises new questions for existing theories of visual attention.     

On the interplay of visuospatial and audiotemporal dominance: Evidence from a multimodal kappa effect

When participants judge multimodal audiovisual stimuli, the auditory information strongly dominates temporal judgments, whereas the visual information dominates spatial judgments. However, temporal judgments are not independent of spatial features. For example, in the kappa effect, the time interval between two marker stimuli appears longer when they originate from spatially distant sources rather than from the same source. We investigated the kappa effect for auditory markers presented with accompanying irrelevant visual stimuli. The spatial sources of the markers were varied such that they were either congruent or incongruent across modalities. In two experiments, we demonstrated that the spatial layout of the visual stimuli affected perceived auditory interval duration. This effect occurred although the visual stimuli were designated to be task-irrelevant for the duration reproduction task in Experiment 1, and even when the visual stimuli did not contain sufficient temporal information to perform a two-interval comparison task in Experiment 2. We conclude that the visual and auditory marker stimuli were integrated into a combined multisensory percept containing temporal as well as task-irrelevant spatial aspects of the stimulation. Through this multisensory integration process, visuospatial information affected even temporal judgments, which are typically dominated by the auditory modality.     

The role of crossmodal competition and dimensional overlap in crossmodal attention switching

Crossmodal selective attention was investigated in a cued task switching paradigm using bimodal visual and auditory stimulation. A cue indicated the imperative modality. Three levels of spatial S–R associations were established following perceptual (location), structural (numerical), and conceptual (verbal) set-level compatibility. In Experiment 1, participants switched attention between the auditory and visual modality either with a spatial-location or spatial-numerical stimulus set. In the spatial-location set, participants performed a localization judgment on left vs. right presented stimuli, whereas the spatial-numerical set required a magnitude judgment about a visually or auditorily presented number word. Single-modality blocks with unimodal stimuli were included as a control condition. In Experiment 2, the spatial-numerical stimulus set was replaced by a spatial-verbal stimulus set using direction words (e.g., “left”). RT data showed modality switch costs, which were asymmetric across modalities in the spatial-numerical and spatial-verbal stimulus set (i.e., larger for auditory than for visual stimuli), and congruency effects, which were asymmetric primarily in the spatial-location stimulus set (i.e., larger for auditory than for visual stimuli). This pattern of effects suggests task-dependent visual dominance.     

Visual dominance and attention: the Colavita effect revisited

Under many conditions, humans display a robust tendency to rely more on visual information than on other forms of sensory information. Colavita (1974) illustrated this visual dominance effect by showing that naive observers typically fail to respond to clearly suprathreshold tones if these are presented simultaneously with a visual target flash. In the present study, we demonstrate that visual dominance influences performance under more complex stimulation conditions and address the role played by attention in mediating this effect. In Experiment 1, we show the Colavita effect in the simple speeded detection of line drawings and naturalistic sounds, whereas in Experiment 2 we demonstrate visual dominance when the task targets (auditory, visual, or bimodal combinations) are embedded among continuous streams of irrelevant distractors. In Experiments 3-5, we address the consequences of varying the probability of occurrence of targets in each sensory modality. In Experiment 6, we further investigate the role played by attention on visual dominance by manipulating perceptual load in either the visual or the auditory modality. Our results demonstrate that selective attention to a particular sensory modality can modulate--although not completely reverse--visual dominance as illustrated by the Colavita effect.     

Influence of auditory and audiovisual stimuli on the right–left prevalence effect

When auditory stimuli are used in two-dimensional spatial compatibility tasks, where the stimulus and response configurations vary along the horizontal and vertical dimensions simultaneously, a right–left prevalence effect occurs in which horizontal compatibility dominates over vertical compatibility. The right–left prevalence effects obtained with auditory stimuli are typically larger than that obtained with visual stimuli even though less attention should be demanded from the horizontal dimension in auditory processing. In the present study, we examined whether auditory or visual dominance occurs when the two-dimensional stimuli are audiovisual, as well as whether there will be cross-modal facilitation of response selection for the horizontal and vertical dimensions. We also examined whether there is an additional benefit of adding a pitch dimension to the auditory stimulus to facilitate vertical coding through use of the spatial-musical association of response codes (SMARC) effect, where pitch is coded in terms of height in space. In Experiment 1, we found a larger right–left prevalence effect for unimodal auditory than visual stimuli. Neutral, non-pitch coded, audiovisual stimuli did not result in cross-modal facilitation, but did show evidence of visual dominance. The right–left prevalence effect was eliminated in the presence of SMARC audiovisual stimuli, but the effect influenced horizontal rather than vertical coding. Experiment 2 showed that the influence of the pitch dimension was not in terms of influencing response selection on a trial-to-trial basis, but in terms of altering the salience of the task environment. Taken together, these findings indicate that in the absence of salient vertical cues, auditory and audiovisual stimuli tend to be coded along the horizontal dimension and vision tends to dominate audition in this two-dimensional spatial stimulus–response task.     

Automatic auditory disambiguation of visual awareness

Multisensory integration can play a critical role in producing unified and reliable perceptual experience. When sensory information in one modality is degraded or ambiguous, information from other senses can crossmodally resolve perceptual ambiguities. Prior research suggests that auditory information can disambiguate the contents of visual awareness by facilitating perception of intermodally consistent stimuli. However, it is unclear whether these effects are truly due to crossmodal facilitation or are mediated by voluntary selective attention to audiovisually congruent stimuli. Here, we demonstrate that sounds can bias competition in binocular rivalry toward audiovisually congruent percepts, even when participants have no recognition of the congruency. When speech sounds were presented in synchrony with speech-like deformations of rivalling ellipses, ellipses with crossmodally congruent deformations were perceptually dominant over those with incongruent deformations. This effect was observed in participants who could not identify the crossmodal congruency in an open-ended interview (Experiment 1) or detect it in a simple 2AFC task (Experiment 2), suggesting that the effect was not due to voluntary selective attention or response bias. These results suggest that sound can automatically disambiguate the contents of visual awareness by facilitating perception of audiovisually congruent stimuli.     

Crossmodal attention switching: Auditory dominance in temporal discrimination tasks

Visual stimuli are often processed more efficiently than accompanying stimuli in another modality. In line with this “visual dominance”, earlier studies on attentional switching showed a clear benefit for visual stimuli in a bimodal visual–auditory modality-switch paradigm that required spatial stimulus localization in the relevant modality. The present study aimed to examine the generality of this visual dominance effect. The modality appropriateness hypothesis proposes that stimuli in different modalities are differentially effectively processed depending on the task dimension, so that processing of visual stimuli is favored in the dimension of space, whereas processing auditory stimuli is favored in the dimension of time. In the present study, we examined this proposition by using a temporal duration judgment in a bimodal visual–auditory switching paradigm. Two experiments demonstrated that crossmodal interference (i.e., temporal stimulus congruence) was larger for visual stimuli than for auditory stimuli, suggesting auditory dominance when performing temporal judgment tasks. However, attention switch costs were larger for the auditory modality than for visual modality, indicating a dissociation of the mechanisms underlying crossmodal competition in stimulus processing and modality-specific biasing of attentional set.     

Re-evaluating visual and auditory dominance through modality switching costs and congruency analyses

Competition between the senses can lead to modality dominance, where one sense influences multi-modal processing to a greater degree than another. Modality dominance can be influenced by task demands, speeds of processing, contextual influence and practice. To resolve previous discrepancies in these factors, we assessed modality dominance in an audio-visual paradigm controlling for the first three factors while manipulating the fourth. Following a uni-modal task in which auditory and visual processing were equated, participants completed a pre-practice selective attention bimodal task in which the congruency relationship and task-relevant modality changed across trials. Participants were given practice in one modality prior to completing a post-practice selective attention bimodal task similar to the first. The effects of practice were non-specific as participants were speeded post-practice relative to pre-practice. Congruent stimuli relative to incongruent stimuli, also led to increased processing efficiency. RT data tended to reveal symmetric modality switching costs whereas the error rate data tended to reveal asymmetric modality switching costs in which switching from auditory to visual processing was particularly costly. The data suggest that when a number of safeguards are put in place to equate auditory and visual responding as far as possible, evidence for an auditory advantage can arise.