ArticleExperimental brain research2019
Peripheral visual localization is degraded by globally incongruent auditory-spatial attention cues.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global and local priming in a multi-modal context.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2022Article
- Auditory cues facilitate object movement processing in human extrastriate visual cortex during simulated self-motion: A pilot study.Brain research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Global auditory-spatial orienting cues help the detection of weak visual stimuli, but it is not clear whether crossmodal attention cues also enhance the resolution of visuospatial discrimination. Here, we hypothesized that if anywhere, crossmodal modulations of visual localization should emerge in the periphery where the receptive fields are large. Subjects were presented with trials where a Visual Target, defined by a cluster of low-luminance dots, was shown for 220 ms at 25°-35° eccentricity in either the left or right hemifield. The Visual Target was either Uncued or it was presented 250 ms after a crossmodal Auditory Cue that was simulated either from the same or the opposite hemifield than the Visual Target location. After a whole-screen visual mask displayed for 800 ms, a pair of vertical Reference Bars was presented ipsilateral to the Visual Target. In a two-alternative forced choice task, subjects were asked to determine which of these two bars was closer to the center of the Visual Target. When the Auditory Cue and Visual Target were hemispatially incongruent, the speed and accuracy of visual localization performance was significantly impaired. However, hemispatially congruent Auditory Cues did not improve the localization of Visual Targets when compared to the Uncued condition. Further analyses suggested that the crossmodal Auditory Cues decreased the sensitivity (d') of the Visual Target localization without affecting post-perceptual decision biases. Our results suggest that in the visual periphery, the detrimental effect of hemispatially incongruent Auditory Cues is far greater than the benefit produced by hemispatially congruent cues. Our working hypothesis for future studies is that auditory-spatial attention cues suppress irrelevant visual locations in a global fashion, without modulating the local visual precision at relevant sites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.