Temporal aspects of the visuotactile congruency effect
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)
- et al.
Extending or projecting peripersonal space with tools? Multisensory interactions highlight only the distal and proximal ends of tools
Neurosci. Lett.
(2004) - et al.
The Stroop color-word test: a review
Acta Psychol.
(1966) - et al.
Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach
Curr. Biol.
(2003) - et al.
Multisensory contributions to the 3-D representation of visuotactile peripersonal space in humans: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task
J. Physiol. (Paris)
(2004) The duration of word meaning responses: Stroop interference for difference preexposures of the word
Psychon. Sci.
(1971)- et al.
Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses
J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen.
(1992) The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap
Psychol. Res.
(1993)- et al.
Visuo-tactile links in covert exogenous spatial attention remap across changes in unseen hand posture
Percept. Psychophys.
(2002) - et al.
Using confidence intervals in within-subjects designs
Psychonom. Bull. Rev.
(1994) - et al.
When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task
Memory Cognition
(1979)
Cross-modal interactions in speeded classification
Cited by (83)
Vision automatically exerts online and offline influences on bimanual tactile spatial perception
2021, Journal of Mathematical PsychologySeeing an image of the hand affects performance on a crossmodal congruency task for sequences of events
2020, Consciousness and CognitionPeripersonal space is diversely sensitive to a temporary vs permanent state of anxiety
2020, CognitionCitation 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 PsychologyCitation 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).
Expected but omitted stimuli affect crossmodal interaction
2018, CognitionA touching advantage: cross-modal stop-signals improve reactive response inhibition
2024, Experimental Brain Research