ArticlePloS one2023
Crossmodal interference on counting performance: Evidence for shared attentional resources.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the act of counting, our perceptual system may rely on information coming from different sensory channels. However, when the information coming from different sources is discordant, such as in the case of a de-synchronization between visual stimuli to be counted and irrelevant auditory stimuli, the performance in a sequential counting task might deteriorate. Such deterioration may originate from two different mechanisms, both linked to exogenous attention attracted by auditory stimuli. Indeed, exogenous auditory triggers may infiltrate our internal "counter", interfering with the counting process, resulting in an overcount; alternatively, the exogenous auditory triggers may disrupt the internal "counter" by deviating participants' attention from the visual stimuli, resulting in an undercount. We tested these hypotheses by asking participants to count visual discs sequentially appearing on the screen while listening to task-irrelevant sounds, in systematically varied conditions: visual stimuli could be synchronized or de-synchronized with sounds; they could feature regular or irregular pacing; and their speed presentation could be fast (approx. 3/sec), moderate (approx. 2/sec), or slow (approx. 1.5/sec). Our results support the second hypothesis since participants tend to undercount visual stimuli in all harder conditions (de-synchronized, irregular, fast sequences). We discuss these results in detail, adding novel elements to the study of crossmodal interference.
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.