ArticleCognitive processing2022
Visual-auditory interactions on explicit and implicit information processing.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2022. 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.
- A study on the effect of music listening on people with high neurotic tendency as evidenced by negative affective scores and physiological responses.Current issues in personality psychology · 2024Article
- Crossmodal interference on counting performance: Evidence for shared attentional resources.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interactions among sensory information are important for generating a coherent percept of the external world. Facilitation and inhibition effects in cross-modal perception have been widely studied for decades. The present study tried to confirm the interaction effects between sensory information in a bimodal context and explore these influences when part of the sensory information was presented without participants' subjective awareness. A total of 40 undergraduate participants were recruited in this mixed design study. Participants were required to count the flashing of the black circle (visual task) or the presentation frequency of the beep sound (auditory task) with the presence of either congruent or incongruent sensory signals in the background. Participants in the explicit group generally performed more accurately and also faster with the congruent stimuli than with the incongruent stimuli. Performance accuracy in the visual task in the implicit group was affected by the non-target sound signals which were presented beneath participants' subjective awareness. The better performance yielded in the auditory task than in the visual task was explained by the appropriateness of the auditory stimulation to the task nature. In addition, the supportive findings regarding processing without awareness should be interpreted with caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35142948What 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.