ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Exploring cross-modal perception in a virtual classroom: the effect of visual stimuli on auditory selective attention.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In virtual reality research, distinguishing between auditory and visual influences on perception has become increasingly challenging. To study auditory selective attention in more close-to-real-life settings, an auditory task was adapted to a virtual classroom. The new environment suggested evidence of increased attention, possibly introduced by the visual representation, gamification effects, and immersion. This could engage participants more effectively. To delve deeper into the impact of cross-modal effects, the paradigm was extended by visual stimuli. Participants were initially tasked with directing their auditory attention to a cued spatial position and categorizing animal names played from that position while ignoring distracting sounds. Animal pictures introduced in Experiment 1 were either congruent or incongruent with the auditory target stimuli, thus either supporting or competing with the auditory information. The concurrent presentation of animal pictures with the animal names increased response times compared to the auditory condition, and incongruent visual stimuli increased response times more than congruent ones. Fewer errors were made with congruent compared to incongruent pictures, and error rates of the auditory condition fell in between. When the visual stimulus was presented 750 ms or 500 ms before the auditory stimuli in Experiment 2, auditory and visual congruence effects interacted. In the 500 ms case, visually congruent stimuli decreased error rates in auditory incongruent trials. Conversely, visually incongruent stimuli decreased error rates on auditory incongruent trials at 750 ms. This reversal of effects suggests a positive priming effect at 500 ms and a semantic inhibition of return effect at 750 ms. Taken together, these findings indicate that cross-modal priming is at least partially different from multisensory integration.
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.