Auditory Stimuli Slow Down Responses and First Fixations: Support for Auditory Dominance in Adults

Under some situations sensory modalities compete for attention, with one modality attenuating processing in a second modality. Almost forty years of research with adults has shown that this competition is typically won by the visual modality. Using a discrimination task on an eye tracker, the current research provides novel support for auditory dominance, with words and nonlinguistic sounds slowing down visual processing. At the same time, there was no evidence suggesting that visual input slowed down auditory processing. Several eye tracking variables correlated with behavioral responses. Of particular interest is the finding that adults’ first fixations were delayed when images were paired with auditory input, especially nonlinguistic sounds. This finding is consistent with neurophysiological findings and also consistent with a potential mechanism underlying auditory dominance effects.

[1]  Christopher W. Robinson,et al.  Evidence for auditory dominance in a passive oddball task , 2010 .

[2]  Christopher W. Robinson,et al.  Visual processing speed: effects of auditory input on visual processing. , 2007, Developmental science.

[3]  Scott Sinnett,et al.  Coexistence of Multiple Modal Dominances , 2011, CogSci.

[4]  Vladimir M Sloutsky,et al.  Is a picture worth a thousand words? The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children. , 2004, Child development.

[5]  D M Green,et al.  Visual and auditory choice reaction times. , 1984, Acta psychologica.

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

[7]  Christopher W. Robinson,et al.  Effects of multimodal presentation and stimulus familiarity on auditory and visual processing. , 2010, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[8]  Christopher W. Robinson,et al.  Auditory dominance and its change in the course of development. , 2004, Child development.

[9]  J. Pernier,et al.  Dynamics of cortico-subcortical cross-modal operations involved in audio-visual object detection in humans. , 2002, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  M. Giard,et al.  Auditory-Visual Integration during Multimodal Object Recognition in Humans: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Study , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  T. Salthouse,et al.  Processing speed as a mental capacity. , 1994, Acta psychologica.

[12]  A. Markman,et al.  Inference using categories. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  F. Colavita Human sensory dominance , 1974 .

[14]  C. Spence Explaining the Colavita visual dominance effect. , 2009, Progress in brain research.

[15]  V. Sloutsky,et al.  Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. , 2003, Child development.

[16]  C. Spence,et al.  Repetition blindness and the Colavita effect , 2010, Neuroscience Letters.

[17]  C. Spence,et al.  Visual dominance and attention: The Colavita effect revisited , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Vladimir M. Sloutsky,et al.  The Role of Words and Sounds in Infants' Visual Processing: From Overshadowing to Attentional Tuning , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  Christopher W. Robinson,et al.  Development of cross-modal processing. , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[20]  R. Lickliter,et al.  Intersensory Redundancy Guides the Development of Selective Attention, Perception, and Cognition in Infancy , 2004 .