Methods Identifying the Costs of Auditory Dominance on Visual Processing: An Eye Tracking Study Wesley R. Barnhart, Samuel Rivera, & Christopher W. Robinson.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Kate Wilmut, Janice H. Brown and John P. Wann University of Reading Figure 2. Order of presentation. Four possible target locations Target two Target one.

Advertisements

All slides © S. J. Luck, except as indicated in the notes sections of individual slides Slides may be used for nonprofit educational purposes if this copyright.

Detecting Conflict-Related Changes in the ACC Judy Savitskaya 1, Jack Grinband 1,3, Tor Wager 2, Vincent P. Ferrera 3, Joy Hirsch 1,3 1.Program for Imaging.

Modality-specific interaction between phonology and semantics Gail Moroschan & Chris Westbury Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, Edmonton,

Attentionally Dependent Bilateral Advantage on Numerosity Judgments Jenny Ewing & Nestor Matthews Department of Psychology, Denison University, Granville.

Piéron’s Law holds in conditions of response conflict Tom Stafford, Kevin N. Gurney & Leanne Ingram Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield

Eye Movements of Younger and Older Drivers Professor: Liu Student: Ruby.

NEUR 3680 Midterm II Review Megan Metzler

Effects of Sound and Visual Congruency on Product Selection and Preference Brock Bass Felipe Fernandez Drew Link Andrew Schmitz.

Comparison of Spatial and Temporal Discrimination Performance across Various Difficulty Levels J.E. THROPP, J.L. SZALMA, & P.A. HANCOCK Department of Psychology.

Charles Spence Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University New Perspectives from the Human Sciences Consumer Focus Workshop (November, 2001)

 The results of Experiment 2 replicated those of Experiment 1. Error rates were comparable for younger adults (2.4%) and older adults (2.1%).  Again,

Propose but Verify: Fast Mapping meets Cross-Situational Learning Medina, Tamara N., Hafri, Alon, Trueswell, John, & Gleitman, Lila R. Background Several.

THE EFFECTS OF AGING ON DISCRETE AND CONTINUOUS MOTOR COORDINATION A. S. Bangert 1, C. M. Walsh 2,3, A. E. Boonin 1,4, E. Anderson 4, D. J. Goble 4, P.

The Positional Acuity of the Human Visual System Year 2 Practical Class Dr. Paul McGraw & Mr. Craig Stockdale.

The ‘when’ pathway of the right parietal lobe L. Battelli A. Pascual - LeoneP. Cavanagh.

Matching pictures with the appropriate sound: results from an eye-tracking study of dogs and 14-month-old infants Anna Gergely 1* A. Hernádi.

Level 1 and Level 2 Auditory Perspective-taking in 3- and 4- Year -Olds Abstract Presented at the Psychology Undergraduate Research Conference, Atlanta,

Methods Inhibition of Return was used as a marker of attention capture.  After attention goes to a location it is inhibited from returning later. Results.

Infant Discrimination of Voices: Predictions from the Intersensory Redundancy Hypothesis Lorraine E. Bahrick, Robert Lickliter, Melissa A. Shuman, Laura.

Cognitive Information Processing Dr. K. A. Korb University of Jos.

Results Attentional Focus Presence of others restricted the attentional focus: Participants showed a smaller flanker compatibility effect for the error.

Three-month-old Infants Recognize Faces in Unimodal Visual but not Bimodal Audiovisual Stimulation Lorraine E. Bahrick 1, Lisa C. Newell 2, Melissa Shuman.

Training Phase Results The RT difference between gain and loss was numerically larger for the second half of the trials than the first half, as predicted,

Infants’ Discrimination of Speech and Faces: Testing the Predictions of the Intersensory Redundacy Hypothesis Mariana C. Wehrhahn and Lorraine E. Bahrick.

Electrophysiological Processing of Single Words in Toddlers and School-Age Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Sharon Coffey-Corina 1, Denise Padden.

The Overall Effect of Childhood Feeding Problems on Caregiver’s Quality of Life Amy J. Majewski 1, W. Hobart Davies 1, & Alan H. Silverman 2 University.

1 Cross-language evidence for three factors in speech perception Sandra Anacleto uOttawa.

The effects of working memory load on negative priming in an N-back task Ewald Neumann Brain-Inspired Cognitive Systems (BICS) July, 2010.

Experimental Psychology PSY 433

Abstract Bahrick and Lickliter (2000) recently proposed an intersensory redundancy hypothesis that states that early in development information presented.

Introduction Can you read the following paragraph? Can we derive meaning from words even if they are distorted by intermixing words with numbers? Perea,

Infant Perception of Object-Affect Relations Mariana Vaillant-Molina and Lorraine E. Bahrick Florida International University Presented at the Society.

Development of Basic Indices of Attention to Nonsocial Events Across Infancy: Effects of Unimodal versus Bimodal Stimulation Lorraine E. Bahrick, James.

Multimodal Virtual Environments: Response Times, Attention, and Presence B 陳柏叡.

The Role of Multisensory Information in Infant Attention to Faces of Speakers Versus the Rhythm of Speech Lorraine E. Bahrick, Mariana Vaillant-Molina,

The Development of Face Perception in Dynamic, Multimodal Events: Predictions from the Intersensory Redundancy Hypothesis Lorraine E. Bahrick, Robert Lickliter,

Disrupting face biases in visual attention Anna S. Law, Liverpool John Moores University Stephen R. H. Langton, University of Stirling Introduction Method.

Tonal Violations Interact with Lexical Processing: Evidence from Cross-modal Priming Meagan E. Curtis 1 and Jamshed J. Bharucha 2 1 Dept. of Psych. & Brain.

PET Count  Word Frequency effects (coefficients) were reliably related to activation in both the striate and ITG for older adults only.  For older adults,

Intersensory Redundancy Facilitates Infants’ Perception of Meaning in Speech Passages Irina Castellanos, Melissa Shuman, and Lorraine E. Bahrick Florida.

ANT Z=52 R ACUE - PASSIVE VCUE - PASSIVE 1300 msVoltageCSD.31uV.03uV/cm 2 AIM We investigate the mechanisms of this hypothesized switch-ERP.

Reinforcement Look at matched picture after sound ends & it moves 10 trials (5 of each pairing) 2 or 4 blocks (2 pairs of words, 2 pairs of swoops) Participants.

Early Time Course Hemisphere Differences in Phonological & Orthographic Processes Laura K. Halderman 1, Christine Chiarello 1 & Natalie Kacinik 2 1 University.

Research Question Introduction References Method & Stimuli Results Conclusion Effects of Correlated External Noise on Processing Capacity The ability to.

The Development of Infants’ Sensitivity to the Orientation of Object Motion: Predictions of the Intersensory Redundancy Hypothesis Lorraine E. Bahrick.

Introduction Method Experiment 2 In spoken word recognition, phonological and indexical properties (i.e., characteristics of the speaker’s voice) of a.

Introduction Results: Mediational Analyses Results: Zero-Order Correlations Method Presented at the 15 th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality.

Connecting Sound with the Mind’s Eye: Multisensory Interactions in Music Conductors W. David Hairston, Ph.D Advanced Neuroscience Imaging Research Lab.

Phonetic Symbolism in an Associative Definition Task

Example trial sequences for visual perspective-taking task

Valdosta State University

Kimron Shapiro & Frances Garrad-Cole The University of Wales, Bangor

David Marchant, Evelyn Carnegie, Paul Ellison

Emilie Zamarripa & Joseph Latimer| Faculty Mentor: Jarrod Hines

1 University of Hamburg 2 University of Applied Sciences Heidelberg

Neurofeedback of beta frequencies:

Emma Birkett Joel Talcott

The Fidelity of Visual and Auditory Memory

Cross-cultural differences on object perception

From: Cross-modal attention influences auditory contrast sensitivity: Decreasing visual load improves auditory thresholds for amplitude- and frequency-modulated.

Susan Geffen, Suzanne Curtin and Susan Graham

The involvement of visual and verbal representations in a quantitative and a qualitative visual change detection task. Laura Jenkins, and Dr Colin Hamilton.

Evidence of Inhibitory Processing During Visual Search

The Development of Emotional Interactions Across the Senses:

Two randomised controlled crossover studies to evaluate the effect of colouring on both self-report and performance measures of well-being Holt, N. J.,

Young Children’s Reasoning about Gender: Stereotypes or Essences?

Wallis, JD Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute UC, Berkeley

Multisensory Integration and Attention in Developmental Dyslexia

Multisensory Integration: Maintaining the Perception of Synchrony

Presentation transcript:

Methods Identifying the Costs of Auditory Dominance on Visual Processing: An Eye Tracking Study Wesley R. Barnhart, Samuel Rivera, & Christopher W. Robinson Abstract The processing of auditory, visual, and multimodal stimuli has generated a great amount of research indicating visual dominance over auditory dominance. The present study uses an eye tracker and behavioral measures to examine how cross-modal presentation affects visual processing. Results indicate auditory dominance; auditory stimuli slow down visual response times. Participants made longer fixations and were slower at making their first fixation when visual stimuli were paired with sounds. Conclusions Introduction Results Methods Introduction References Cross-modal presentation has been found to impact the processing of one modality (Colavita, 1974; Robinson & Sloutsky, 2004; Sloutsky & Napolitano, 2003). Forty years of research with adults has indicated visual dominance (Colavita, 1974). Trying to reverse this effect has failed, with much of this research strengthening the proposed mechanism of visual dominance (Ngo et al., 2010; see Sinnet et al, 2007; 2008, and Spence, 2009, for reviews). Recent research has modeled a different pattern: auditory dominance (Robinson & Sloutsky, 2004). Developmental research has pinpointed this effect, with visual processing appearing to be attenuated in the presence of auditory stimuli. The present study sought to further this finding of auditory dominance in an adult population. Participants 29 psychology undergraduate students completed unimodal visual and cross-modal conditions. All participants reported normal hearing and vision. Stimuli Nonlinguistic sounds stimuli were created using Audacity; visual stimuli were created in PowerPoint (see Figure 1). Procedure Determine if pairs of stimuli were exactly the same or different. Visual response times slower in cross-modal condition than in unimodal condition, t (28) = 3.69, p < Dependent Measure Unimodal Condition (SE) Cross-modal Condition (SE) Paired t (df) p value Mean Fixation Duration* 296 (13)347 (24)2.63 (28).014 Prop. Looking to Relevant AOIs.15 (.02).14 (.02)-0.50 (28).619 Number of Fixations 1.10 (.11)1.07 (.11)-0.27 (28).792 Mean Pupil Size* 214 (11)228 (13)2.14 (28).041 Latency of First Look* 334 (17)409 (30)3.13 (28).004 Latency First Look to Relevant AOI* 479 (35)624 (54)2.72 (17).015 Colavita, F.B. (1974). Human Sensory Dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, Ngo, K.M., Sinnet, S., Soto-Franco, S., & Spence, C. (2010). Repetition Blindness and the Colavita Effect. Neuroscience Letters, 480(3), Robinson, C. W., Ahmar, N., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2010). Evidence for auditory dominance in a passive oddball task. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp ). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2004). Auditory dominance and its change in the course of development. Child Development, 75, Robinson, C.W., & Sloutsky, V.M. (2010). Development of cross-modal processing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, Sinnet, S., Soto-Faraco, S., & Spence, C. (2008). The co-occurrence of multisensory competition and facilitation. Acta Psychologica, 128, Sinnet, S., Spence, C. & Soto-Faraco, S. (2007). Visual dominance and attention: Revisting the Colavita effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, Sloutsky, V.M., & Napolitano A (2003). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. Child Development, 74, Sloutsky, V.M. & Robinson, C.W. (2008). The role of words and sounds in visual processing: From overshadowing to attentional tuning. Cognitive Science, 32, Spence, C. (2009). Explaining the Colavita visual dominance effect. Progress in Brain Research, 176, 245–258. Table 1: Means, Standard Errors, Paired t’s, and p’s across the unimodal and cross-modal conditions. Note: “*” denotes that p <.05 Results consistent with auditory dominance in cross- modal visual condition: auditory stimuli attenuate visual processing compared to unimodal visual condition. Increased fixation durations and slower latencies of first look are consistent with a proposed mechanism of auditory dominance (Robinson & Sloutsky, 2010). Future research should further examine eye tracking variables to provide potential insights. Additional work should mimic this present study in younger populations. DiffFix Dur.% Rel.Fix #PupilLat.Lat. First Diff---.47*.20.42*-.36* * Fix Dur * % Rel Fix # Pupil Size Lat Lat. First --- Table 2: Mean Fixation Duration, Number of Fixations, Mean Pupil Size, and Latency of First Look to Relevant AOIs correlated with the cost of auditory input on visual processing (i.e., RT on Cross-modal visual minus RT on Unimodal Visual). None of the dependent measures in the unimodal condition significantly correlated with Diff. Note: “*” denotes that p <.05. Cross Modal 1s1s Same New A New V Both New 1s1s A1 A2 A1 Same New V 1 s Unimodal Visual Figure 1: Trial types presented.