Seeing the light: exploring the Colavita visual dominance effect

The Colavita visual dominance effect refers to the phenomenon whereby participants presented with unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, or bimodal audiovisual stimuli in a speeded discrimination task, fail to respond to the auditory component of bimodal targets significantly more often than they fail to respond to the visual component. The Colavita effect was demonstrated in this study when participants were presented with unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, or bimodal stimuli (in the ratios 40:40:20, Experiment 1; or 33:33:33, Experiment 2), to which they had to respond by pressing an auditory response key, a visual response key, or both response keys. The Colavita effect was also demonstrated when participants had to respond to the bimodal targets using a dedicated third (bimodal) response key (Experiment 3). These results therefore suggest that stimulus probability and the response demands of the task do not contribute significantly to the Colavita effect. In Experiment 4, we investigated what role exogenous attention toward a sensory modality plays in the Colavita effect. A significantly larger Colavita effect was observed when a visual cue preceded the bimodal target than when an auditory cue preceded it. This result suggests that the Colavita visual dominance effect can be partially explained in terms of the greater exogenous attention-capturing qualities of visual versus auditory stimuli.

[1]  H Pashler,et al.  Making two responses to a single object: implications for the central attentional bottleneck. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  On the locus of visual dominance , 1977 .

[3]  I ROCK,et al.  Vision and Touch: An Experimentally Created Conflict between the Two Senses , 1964, Science.

[4]  R S Nickerson,et al.  Intersensory facilitation of reaction time: energy summation or preparation enhancement? , 1973, Psychological review.

[5]  Paul J. Laurienti,et al.  Semantic congruence is a critical factor in multisensory behavioral performance , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[7]  C. Spence,et al.  Audiovisual prior entry , 2003, Neuroscience Letters.

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

[9]  F. Colavita,et al.  A further investigation of visual dominance , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  C. Spence,et al.  The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  W. F. Smith.  The relative quickness of visual and auditory perception. , 1933 .

[12]  V. Lolordo,et al.  Stimulus-reinforcer interactions in Pavlovian conditioning of pigeons: Implications for selective associations , 1980 .

[13]  Charles Spence,et al.  Spatial coincidence modulates the Colavita visual dominance effect , 2007, Neuroscience Letters.

[14]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Illusions: What you see is what you hear , 2000, Nature.

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

[16]  D. Whitaker,et al.  Sensory uncertainty governs the extent of audio-visual interaction , 2004, Vision Research.

[17]  E. Soetens.  Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure , 1998 .

[18]  M. Posner.  Chronometric explorations of mind , 1978 .

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

[20]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Auditory capture of vision: examining temporal ventriloquism. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[21]  I. Howard,et al.  Human Spatial Orientation , 1966 .

[22]  L. Boulter.  Attention and reaction times to signals of uncertain modality. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  P. Bertelson,et al.  The psychology of multimodal perception , 2004 .

[24]  P. Marler,et al.  Communication Goes Multimodal , 1999, Science.

[25]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  Bruce Bridgeman,et al.  Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  R. Klein,et al.  Effects of arousal on human visual dominance , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  D. Massaro,et al.  Attention and processing capacity in auditory recognition. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  E. Titchener.  Scientific Books: Lectures on the Elementary Psychology of Feeling and Attention , 1909 .

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

[31]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Multisensory auditory-visual interactions during early sensory processing in humans: a high-density electrical mapping study. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[32]  P. Rodway.  The modality shift effect and the effectiveness of warning signals in different modalities. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[33]  S Shimojo,et al.  Attentional Modulation in Perception of Visual Motion Events , 1998, Perception.

[34]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Non-Informative Effects of Stimuli Functioning as Cues , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[36]  E. Soetens,et al.  Automatic aftereffects in two-choice reaction time: a mathematical representation of some concepts. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[38]  T. Johnson,et al.  Attention to auditory and peripheral visual stimuli: effects of arousal and predictability. , 1989, Acta psychologica.

[39]  I. Rock,et al.  Vision and touch. , 1967, Scientific American.

[40]  William C. Ogden,et al.  Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location , 2014 .

[41]  P. Bertelson.  Sequential Redundancy and Speed in a Serial Two-Choice Responding Task , 1961 .

[42]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  Automatic visual bias of perceived auditory location , 1998 .

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

[44]  H. Pick,et al.  Visual capture produced by prism spectacles , 1965 .

[45]  Alice J. Hamlin,et al.  On the Least Observable Interval between Stimuli Addressed to Disparate Senses and to Different Organs of the Same Sense , 1895 .

[46]  G. Recanzone.  Auditory influences on visual temporal rate perception. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[47]  H. McGurk,et al.  Hearing lips and seeing voices , 1976, Nature.

[48]  Robert B. Welch,et al.  Contributions of audition and vision to temporal rate perception , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[49]  J. Driver,et al.  Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[50]  Andries F. Sanders,et al.  The Foreperiod Effect Revisited , 1975 .

[51]  D. Holender.  24 Interference Between A Vocal and A Manual Response to the Same Stimulus , 1980 .

[52]  H. Pashler.  The Psychology of Attention , 1997 .

[53]  V. Lolordo,et al.  Visual dominance in the pigeon. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[54]  Harold Pashler,et al.  Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. , 1991 .

[55]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions , 2001, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[56]  Giovanni Galfano,et al.  Nonspatial attentional shifts between audition and vision. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[57]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. , 1993 .

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

[59]  F. Colavita,et al.  Visual prepotency and eye orientation , 1976 .

[60]  E. Soetens,et al.  Sequence learning and sequential effects , 2004, Psychological research.