Reliability of auditory responses under increasing intensity of visual stimulation in relation to personality

Auditory thresholds were determined in each subject on two different occasions, by a modified method of limits under 10 intensities of light. Coefficients of reliability and analyses of variance of the data showed significant reliability of responses to tones in introverts (I) and extraverts (E), under increasing intensities of light. The auditory responses were most reliable in I and least in ambiverts (A). The same visual stimuli produced the same effects on auditory sensitivity, in the same subjects, on different days. These effects included facilitation and inhibition of sensitivity in I, facilitation in E and A, and interaction of intensity conditions and personality type.     

The effect of intensity of visual stimulation upon auditory acuity

The Psychological Record -     

Effect of interval between auditory and preceding visual stimuli on auditory sensitivity

Auditory thresholds were determined by a modified method of limits, in introverts, ambiverts and extraverts, under three intensities of light. Five determinations were made: one before, one during and three (30 sec., c. 8 and 16 min.) after the light stimulation. An analysis of variance of the data showed significant results for the interval conditions, the personality type and the interaction of these parameters, under the weak light. Interval effects were also significant under medium and strong light. A weak light increased, and a strong light decreased, auditory sensitivity when threshold determinations began 30 sec., but not more than about 8 min., after the light stimulation, in introverts.     

Stimulus intensity effects on auditory and visual reaction processes.

Literature on the effect of stimulus intensity on reaction processes was reviewed. It was shown that there is no agreement as to whether intensity effects are limited to encoding or whether they are extended to later processing stages. The situation can be characterized as an asymmetry between modalities: vision is consistent with the first alternative and audition with the second.Chronometric analysis was used to bear on the question. It was shown that the effects of visual intensity and foreperiod (FP) are additive in a simple RT situation both for constant and mixed blocks FP. Auditory intensity and FP interact in both simple and two-choice situations. In a control experiment visual intensity and S-R compatibility were found to be additive. The asymmetry was accounted for by auditory alerting, previously discussed by several authors.The framework of stimulus intensity research utilizing RT measures was briefly evaluated.     

The influence of auditory stimulation on a visual oblique effect

It has previously been reported by Smets that there is an increase in the magnitude of the monocular oblique effect when a 70 dB(A), 1 kHz acoustic stimulus is presented contralaterally, but not ipsilaterally, to the viewing eye. This finding was interpreted as one which provided difficulties both for data-driven models of information processing and for the cortical simple cell explanation of the oblique effect. There are several logical and methodological difficulties in Smets's paper, and in the two experiments reported here the effect found by Smets was not replicated. The failure to observe the effect was robust under conditions that maximised the possibility of neural interaction. It is concluded that acoustic stimulation does not affect the magnitude of the oblique effect.     

Reaction times to auditory and visual stimulation in schizophrenic and normal subjects

An experiment carried out to determine the relation between auditory and visual reaction times suggested that when the general level of response is slow visual RTs are faster than auditory, and that the reverse is the case when the level of response is fast. Thus most normal subjects have an auditory RT faster than visual, and most schizophrenics the reverse. However, the difference between auditory and visual RTs does not appear to depend directly on schizophrenic pathology except in so far as this is a factor in the general slowness of reaction time.     

Action enhances auditory but not visual temporal sensitivity

People naturally dance to music, and research has shown that rhythmic auditory stimuli facilitate production of precisely timed body movements. If motor mechanisms are closely linked to auditory temporal processing, just as auditory temporal processing facilitates movement production, producing action might reciprocally enhance auditory temporal sensitivity. We tested this novel hypothesis with a standard temporal-bisection paradigm, in which the slope of the temporal-bisection function provides a measure of temporal sensitivity. The bisection slope for auditory time perception was steeper when participants initiated each auditory stimulus sequence via a keypress than when they passively heard each sequence, demonstrating that initiating action enhances auditory temporal sensitivity. This enhancement is specific to the auditory modality, because voluntarily initiating each sequence did not enhance visual temporal sensitivity. A control experiment ruled out the possibility that tactile sensation associated with a keypress increased auditory temporal sensitivity. Taken together, these results demonstrate a unique reciprocal relationship between auditory time perception and motor mechanisms. As auditory perception facilitates precisely timed movements, generating action enhances auditory temporal sensitivity.     

Stimulus compatibility effects of an accessory visual stimulus on auditory sensitivity

Studies have reported that an accessory stimulus in a second modality can have a facilitative effect on sensory detection in a primary modality. However, performance declines when the subject has the additional task of reporting on the accessory stimulus. The facilitative effect has been attributed to an arousal or warning process, while the interference effect has been characterized as a result of limited channel capacity. Auditory sensitivity was assessed under accessory visual stimulation. Visual stimulus intensity (arousal), processing demand, and interstimulus compatibility (same or opposite direction of change of primary and secondary stimuli) were manipulated. The results indicated that interstimulus compatibility, not arousal, accounted for the obtained facilitation effect. Interference due to additional task demands was not observed. It was proposed that the facilitation effect was due to selective sensory encoding.     

Absolute sensitivity to white noise under auxiliary visual stimulation1

Absolute sensitivity to white noise was measured with the O in the dark, in constant illumination, and in the dark but with sound-synchronized flashes of light at three different intensities. A confidence rating procedure was used, and the results were analyzed in terms of the theory of signal detectability. There appeared to be no consistent effect of auxiliary visual stimulation on absolute auditory sensitivity for the four Os examined.     

Effect of simultaneous auditory stimulation on vibrotactile thresholds

Vibrotactile thresholds were determined at 250 and 400 Hz in the presence of (1) the sounds emitted by the vibrator, (2) continuous tonal or narrow-band masking noise, or (3) a pulsed tone synchronized with the vibrator signal. The measure of a cross-modality effect was the threshold shift occurring between each condition and the control condition, in which earmuff silencers eliminated the vibrator sounds. Continuous tones or noise had no effect upon vibrotactile thresholds. However, auditory signals synchronized with the vibrator signals did significantly elevate vibrotactile thresholds.     

Effect of feedback on estimates of visual sensitivity

Estimates of visual sensitivity are often difficult to interpret because nonsensory factors may influence performance on a psychophysical task. We examined for 19 naive students, ages 10 to 40 yr., the effect of feedback on estimates of contrast sensitivity and found no evidence that feedback improves performance when compared to no feedback conditions.     

Sensory interaction: Control of auditory discrimination by visual stimulation in the pigeon

Two pigeons were trained to peck at different keys. each associated with a different tone Intensity. Although the test tones were of the same Intensity as those used during training, simultaneous presentation of a light With the tone altered the probability of correct key choice In the same manner as increasing the intensity of the tone.