On the inability to ignore touch when responding to vision in the crossmodal congruency task.

We investigated the extent to which people can selectively ignore distracting vibrotactile information when performing a visual task. In Experiment 1, participants made speeded elevation discrimination responses (up vs. down) to a series of visual targets presented from one of two eccentricities on either side of central fixation, while simultaneously trying to ignore task-irrelevant vibrotactile distractors presented independently to the finger (up) vs. thumb (down) of either hand. Participants responded significantly more slowly, and somewhat less accurately, when the elevation of the vibrotactile distractor was incongruent with that of the visual target than when they were presented from the same (i.e., congruent) elevation. This crossmodal congruency effect was significantly larger when the visual and tactile stimuli appeared on the same side of space than when they appeared on different sides, although the relative eccentricity of the two stimuli within the hemifield (i.e., same vs. different) had little effect on performance. In Experiment 2, participants who crossed their hands over the midline showed a very different pattern of crossmodal congruency effects to participants who adopted an uncrossed hands posture. Our results suggest that both the relative external location and the initial hemispheric projection of the target and distractor stimuli contribute jointly to determining the magnitude of the crossmodal congruency effect when participants have to respond to vision and ignore touch.

[1]  Lawrence E. Marks,et al.  Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  A. Friedman,et al.  Hemispheres as independent resource systems: limited-capacity processing and cerebral specialization. , 1981 .

[3]  L E Marks,et al.  Perceptual primacy of dimensions: support for a model of dimensional interaction. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Pietro G. Morasso,et al.  Self-Organization, Computational Maps, and Motor Control , 1997 .

[5]  Paul Bertelson,et al.  The aftereffects of ventriloquism: generalization across sound-frequencies. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[6]  R. Baddeley,et al.  Multisensory temporal order judgments: When two locations are better than one , 2003, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  Stimules configuration in selective attention tasks , 1973 .

[8]  Jon Driver,et al.  Attentional competition between modalities: extinction between touch and vision after right hemisphere damage , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  C. Spence,et al.  Tool-use changes multimodal spatial interactions between vision and touch in normal humans , 2002, Cognition.

[10]  C. Spence,et al.  Tactile-Visual Links in Exogenous Spatial Attention under Different Postures: Convergent Evidence from Psychophysics and ERPs , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[12]  R. Melara,et al.  Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[13]  C. Spence,et al.  Visual Capture of Touch: Out-of-the-Body Experiences With Rubber Gloves , 2000, Psychological science.

[14]  Marcel Kinsbourne,et al.  Hemispheric disconnection and cerebral function , 1974 .

[15]  C. Spence,et al.  Exogenous spatial cuing studies of human crossmodal attention and multisensory integration , 2004 .

[16]  Jon Driver,et al.  Crossmodal Spatial Attention: Evidence from Human Performance , 2004 .

[17]  C. Spence,et al.  Confusing the mind by crossing the hands. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[18]  I H Bernstein,et al.  Effects of some variations in auditory input upon visual choice reaction time. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  M. Kinsbourne,et al.  Generalized and Lateralized Effects of Concurrent Verbalization on a Unimanual Skill , 1971 .

[20]  J. Stroop.  Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

[21]  C. Spence,et al.  Visuo-tactile links in covert exogenous spatial attention remap across changes in unseen hand posture , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  Alan Kingstone,et al.  Assessing automaticity in the audiovisual integration of motion. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[23]  Frederick N. Dyer,et al.  The duration of word meaning responses: Stroop interference for different preexposures of the word , 1971 .

[24]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Chapter 2 – ATTENTION: THE PROCESSING OF MULTIPLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION* , 1974 .

[25]  M. Posner,et al.  Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. , 1976, Psychological review.

[26]  Francesco Pavani,et al.  Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuotactile peripersonal space in humans: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task , 2004, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[27]  R. Klein.  Attention and visual dominance: a chronometric analysis. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  C. Spence,et al.  Spatial modulation of repetition blindness and repetition deafness , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[29]  L. Marks,et al.  Cross-Modal Interaction between Vision and Touch: The Role of Synesthetic Correspondence , 2000, Perception.

[30]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Computational models of sensorimotor integration , 1997 .

[31]  Philip T Quinlan,et al.  Garner and congruence effects in the speeded classification of bimodal signals. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  D. Freides,et al.  Human information processing and sensory modality: cross-modal functions, information complexity, memory, and deficit. , 1974, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  R. Melara.  Dimensional interaction between color and pitch , 1989 .

[34]  M. Banich,et al.  A generalized role of interhemispheric interaction under attentionally demanding conditions: evidence from the auditory and tactile modality , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[35]  W. R. Garner.  The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[36]  Charles Spence,et al.  Cross-modal congruency and visual capture in a visual elevation-discrimination task , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[37]  D. Burr,et al.  The Ventriloquist Effect Results from Near-Optimal Bimodal Integration , 2004, Current Biology.

[38]  D. H. Warren,et al.  Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. , 1980, Psychological bulletin.

[39]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays , 1972 .

[40]  L Frisén,et al.  Optical and neural resolution in peripheral vision. , 1975, Investigative ophthalmology.

[41]  Ronald E. Shor,et al.  The processing of conceptual information on spatial directions from pictorial and linguistic symbols , 1970 .

[42]  L E Marks,et al.  On cross-modal similarity: auditory-visual interactions in speeded discrimination. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  Robert A Jacobs,et al.  Bayesian integration of visual and auditory signals for spatial localization. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[44]  C. Spence,et al.  Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach , 2003, Current Biology.

[45]  C. Spence,et al.  Multisensory Integration: Maintaining the Perception of Synchrony , 2003, Current Biology.

[46]  C. Spence,et al.  Cross-modal links in exogenous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  J. Requin.  Attention and Performance VII , 1980 .

[48]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[49]  C. Spence,et al.  Early Vision Impairs Tactile Perception in the Blind , 2004, Current Biology.

[50]  C. Spence,et al.  Multisensory perception: Beyond modularity and convergence , 2000, Current Biology.

[51]  Kenneth R. Boff,et al.  Sensory processes and perception , 1986 .

[52]  Paul Bertelson,et al.  The effect of a textured visual field on modality dominance in a ventriloquism situation , 1976 .

[53]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  Representation of Visuotactile Space in the Split Brain , 2001, Psychological science.

[54]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  Attention and object perception. , 1989 .

[55]  C. Spence,et al.  Crossmodal Space and Crossmodal Attention , 2004 .

[56]  Robert D. Melara,et al.  Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions. , 1987 .

[57]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Judging up and down. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[58]  C. Spence,et al.  Crossmodal links between vision and touch in covert endogenous spatial attention. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[59]  C. Spence,et al.  Multisensory prior entry. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[60]  Jason B. Mattingley,et al.  Preserved cross-modal attentional links in the absence of conscious vision: Evidence from patients with primary visual cortex lesions. , 2000 .

[61]  G. Békésy.  INTERACTION OF PAIRED SENSORY STIMULI AND CONDUCTION IN PERIPHERAL NERVES. , 1963 .

[62]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see , 1998, Nature.

[63]  C. Spence,et al.  Spatial constraints on visual-tactile cross-modal distractor congruency effects , 2004, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.