Elsevier

Neuroscience Letters

Volume 392, Issues 1–2, 9 January 2006, Pages 96-100
Neuroscience Letters

Temporal aspects of the visuotactile congruency effect

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2005.09.001Get rights and content

Abstract

We report an experiment designed to investigate the temporal dynamics of the visuotactile crossmodal congruency effect. Vibrotactile targets were presented randomly to the index finger (top side of a hand-held cube) or thumb (bottom side) of either hand while visual distractors were presented randomly from one of the same four possible locations. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the vibrotactile target and the visual distractor was varied on a trial-by-trial basis. Participants made speeded discrimination responses regarding the elevation of the vibrotactile targets (i.e., upper versus lower) while trying to ignore the visual distractors. The largest crossmodal congruency effects (defined as the difference in performance between incongruent and congruent elevation distractor trials) were obtained when the visual distractor preceded the vibrotactile target by 50–100 ms, although significant effects were also reported when the distractor followed the target by as much as 100 ms. These results are discussed in terms of the conjoint influence of response competition, crossmodal perceptual interactions (i.e., the ventriloquism effect), and exogenous spatial attention on the crossmodal congruency effect. The distinct temporal signatures of each of these effects are also highlighted.

Section snippets

Acknowledgements

D.I.S. and C.S. were funded by a Network Grant from the University of Oxford McDonnell-Pew Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience. D.I.S was also funded by a discovery grant from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, a Premier's Research Excellence Award from the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, and a New Opportunities Infrastructure grant jointly funded by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Ontario Innovation Trust. This experiment was

References (22)

  • L.E. Marks

    Cross-modal interactions in speeded classification

  • Cited by (83)

    • Peripersonal space is diversely sensitive to a temporary vs permanent state of anxiety

      2020, Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      An alternative explanation of the non-significant data in far space could be rooted in the time interval used between the tactile and the first visual stimulus presentation, that was set at 200 ms. We decided to replicate this temporal interval as in Filbrich, Alamia, Blandiaux, et al. (2017) and Filbrich, Alamia, Burns, and Legrain (2017), also considering evidence coming from the cross-modal congruency tasks that assessed the optimal time window for cross-modal congruency effects (Shore, Barnes, & Spence, 2006; Spence, Pavani, & Driver, 2004). In particular, when performing a tactile discrimination task while receiving visual distractors, i.e. the opposite combination than the present one, authors showed that the cuing of spatial attention emerges when vibrotactile targets follows visual distractors by 200 ms on congruent trials (Shore et al., 2006). Of course, in our paradigm, as well as that of Filbrich and colleagues, the relation between vision and somatosensory stimulus was reversed.

    • Tool use modulates early stages of visuo-tactile integration in far space: Evidence from event-related potentials

      2019, Biological Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      The task used in the present study was developed to investigate the electrophysiological correlates of visuo-tactile processing in near and far space after different tool conditions. While the classic CCT provides robust behavioural effects, task demands (i.e. response requirements; Gallace, Soto-Faraco, Dalton, Kreukniet, & Spence, 2008) and response conflict (Forster & Pavone, 2008; Marini et al., 2016; Spence, Pavani, & Driver, 2004; Shore, Barnes, & Spence, 2005) rather than multisensory integration have been suggested to play a fundamental role in the occurrence of the CCE. This was further shown in an ERP study using the classic CCT in which no spatial modulation of visuo-tactile processing was observed during early processing stages, suggesting that crossmodal visual distractor effects were largely due to response conflicts (Forster & Pavone, 2008).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text