Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24728130›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2014

Response interference in touch, vision, and crossmodally: beyond the spatial dimension.

Frank Mast, Christian Frings, Charles Spence

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Deaf, blind or deaf-blind: Is touch enhanced?Experimental brain research · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Frank MastDepartment of Psychology, Faculty 1, University of Trier, 54286, Trier, Germany, mastfra@uni-trier.de.
Christian Frings
Charles Spence

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date, tactile distractor processing has primarily been investigated by focusing on the spatial characteristics of distractors and the impact of their presentation on the orienting of attention. In two experiments, we examined the influence of tactile distractors when the location of stimulus presentation was kept constant, thus controlling for the effects of spatial attention. A response priming paradigm was used in which two stimuli were sequentially presented from the same (fixated) direction. Typically, target responses are facilitated when the previously presented distractor (i.e., the prime) happens to map on to the same response as compared to the distractor maps on to the opposite response. Similar response priming effects were observed for tactile and visual distractors within a unimodal experimental setting (Experiments 1a and 1b). Interestingly, however, when the targets and distractors were presented in different sensory modalities, only the visual distractors exerted a crossmodal effect on the subsequent processing of vibrotactile targets (Experiment 2). These results therefore indicate that visual stimuli automatically trigger their corresponding response even when the task at hand is not visual, whereas tactile stimuli are only processed up to the level of response generation when the participants' task is tactile.

Indexed as

AnthracenesAttentionDiscrimination, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMalePhysical StimulationReaction TimeSpace PerceptionTime FactorsTouchVibrationVision, OcularYoung AdultAnOV compoundAnthracenes

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.