ability to pay visual attention in an environment and
combine information with other incoming senses (e.g. auditory information)
comes as a multisensory, evolutionary advantage. This is because localising a
snake, for example, is easier when combining spatial information (movement in
the undergrowth with a ‘rattle’ sound), than locating a predator with a single
modality on its own. Attentional mechanisms therefore are adapted to be
integrated so that they can pick out and combine the saliency of any given environment
as needed even without the conscious control of the observer. In the visual
domain, space-based attention, as demonstrated by Posner (1980), is an
attentional prioritisation of a location. Posner’s well known cueing paradigm
used a central fixation point and peripherally located objects to successfully
evidence that when fixating in the centre of a display screen, exogenous cueing
(any non-informative deliberate event before the target onset that captures
attention) can manipulate how quickly a spatial location can be attended to
without direct eye movements. Thus, it is possible to attend psychologically to
an area (using covert attention) without direct eye contact. Subsequent
investigation demonstrated the variability of spatial attention. It was likened
to a metaphorical spotlight, able to adapt and accommodate attentional spread
according to the task (Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974). Thus, local features can
either help or hinder depending on their similarity, or their salience
(LaBerge, 1983). Furthermore, Egly, Driver and Rafal (1994) demonstrated that
spatial attention was object based since reaction times were quicker for
targets within the same object than an alternative object. Therefore, attention
spreads within the cued object fastest. However, beyond a 250 millisecond
(msec) timeframe, the benefit is reversed and response delayed, a concept known
as inhibition of return (Klein and Ivanoff, 2008). During an IOR task,
participants fixate on an uninformative central location within a visual display,
and reaction time to locate a target appearing peripherally is measured.
Sometimes the target is correctly cued and at other times, not. Consequently,
it is possible to manipulate which side will be responded to quickest because
IOR enables new stimuli to be prioritised over old by the use of inhibitory
tagging (Klein and Ivanoff, 2008). Further, moving objects equally show this
tendency (Tipper, Driver and Weaver, 1991). Since object movement does not
affect this preference, this study will consider what happens to IOR when the
object’s identity and location are ambiguous.
Moreover, with this ambiguity, can spatial attention be manipulated
cross-modally by the addition of sound? For instance, visual motion perception
is altered by the addition of sound when discs approach one another from either
end of a visual display and the point of coincidence is occluded. When no
additional stimulus is present, the discs are perceived as passing (streaming).
However, a sound input at the moment of coincidence changes perception to discs
bouncing off each other (Sekuler, Sekuler and Lau, 1997). This is because the
senses are designed to cooperate (Spence et al., 2000). Interestingly, IOR has
equally been demonstrated as supramodal in this way (Spence et al., 2000).
Thus, since IOR can travel with an object (Tipper et al., 1991) and motion
perception can be altered by sound, it leaves open the question of whether IOR
could be manipulated to travel with an object during a bounce/stream paradigm.
This investigation will seek to identify whether a combination of sound and
vision can affect how objects are perceived and attended to. To achieve this, a
typical Posner cueing task (1980) will be adapted into the bounce/stream
paradigm demonstrated by Sanabria, Correa, Lupianez and Spence (2004). If IOR
tends to follow this stream/bounce perception, it is expected that inhibition
should apply to different sides depending on whether or not the sound is
present. With the sound, inhibition should return to the starting location and
RTs should be slower when cue and target are on the same side of the screen.
An opportunity sample of sixty-eight
healthy volunteers, 17–50 years of age (mean age 21 years), took part in the
study. All were naive to the purposes of the experiment. Six participants were
excluded (see results section). The remaining sixty-two participants consisted
of fifty-seven right handed and five left handed individuals. All reported
having normal hearing and normal or corrected-to-normal vision.
The Stimulus presentation, response
times (RT) and error rates were controlled and recorded by a Mac computer
(Superlab) and keyboard. Headphones delivered the sound.
The display layout can be seen in
. Display measurements were as
follows: Discs 1.2 cm (diameter), distance of discs to top and bottom of
display 6 cm, from discs to occluder 8 cm, visual occluder 9.7 cm x 4.7 cm,
distance of occluder to top and bottom of display 6 cm, display box 23.5 cm x
13.5 cm, central fixation 1.1 cm x 1.1 cm.
A 2x2 within subjects design was used.
The first factor was block type with two levels: sound or silent. The second
factor was side of target with two levels: same (screen side as cue) or
different (opposite screen side to cue) randomised throughout a block. The
dependent variable was RT in msec. The order of the blocks was decided
beforehand (by coin toss) and was alternated between sound and silent
conditions for a total of 4 blocks.
Care was taken to ensure that participants
did not see the experiment beforehand and participants were advised that the
experiment was designed to see whether what they hear and see affected how
quickly they reacted to a visual target. All participants were tested in
individual booths and given the same information. Participants chose a
preferred responding hand in advance and were told to react as quickly and
accurately as possible. Clear instruction was given to focus on the fixation
point (central black cross) throughout trials and to have their chosen hand
readied at the keyboard. For each participant, a ten trial practice was given
to familiarise themselves with the task, in same block-type as had been
allocated as the starting block. If more practice was required, more trials were
given. Participants wore headphones in all blocks.
For silent trials, a white horizontal
rectangle was centrally placed within a black screen. Inside were black discs
either side of the screen equidistant from the centre (as shown in
). At the start of every trial
the display was shown for 500 msec before a non-informative white circle (cue)
flashed for 200 msec within one of either discs to initiate covert attention.
Afterwards, the discs moved to the opposite side of the screen taking 1000 msec
). Whilst occluded, (
) the fixation momentarily
flashed. On same side trials, the target (white asterisk) subsequently appeared
on the same side spatially within a disc. In the different side trials, the
target appeared on the opposite side spatially. On catch trials no target
appeared and after 2 seconds (if correctly rejected), the trial terminated. For
half of the trials the target appeared immediately after movement stopped,
whilst for the other half there was a 200 msec delay.
Participants responded with the keyboard space
bar ending the trial and initiating the next.
For the sound block the same format was
used, but during occlusion the sound (click) was delivered for 100 msec at the
coincidence point of the discs. Each block contained a mixture of same,
different and catch trials randomly presented. Each block had sixty trials,
twenty-four same/different side trials randomised amongst twelve catch trials.
A schematic illustration for a sound trial (encouraging the
perception of a bounce), and the silent trial (encouraging the perception of
The black arrows below the discs indicate the direction of
movement (before and after the occlusion) for that trial. T1, onset of motion
at the beginning of the trial (after the cue has been deployed) T2, the
occlusion point with central fixation point flashing, T3, the re-emergence of
discs after coincidence.
The data from six participants was
excluded from analysis; four were omitted due to a lack of understanding and
two were omitted due to a failure to complete.
Trials where the target was not present (catch trials) were placed
into four categories and counted. The trials were grouped according to whether
or not the sound was present, those that were accurately ignored (correct
rejections) and those that were accidently responded to (false alarms). The
number of false alarms was 4.1%. The trials where the target was present were
counted using the criterion that the response was made between 50–1500 msec
after the target onset. These trials were counted (as hits) and the rest as
misses (2.6% misses overall). Target trials were grouped according to whether
the target and cue had appeared on the same, or on separate sides. For each
participant and each combination of sound (present/absent) and side cue
(same/different), the median reaction time (RT) was calculated using only the
trials that were hits. Overall, four scores were calculated for each participant.
The inter-participant means of median RTs were then calculated for each
condition (see figure 2
Inter-participant means of median reaction times to locate a
same screen side (dark grey) versus different screen side (light grey) cued
target by condition (sound versus silent). Silent condition standard deviations
were 68.5 (same), 65.7 (different).
A two-way (
subjects ANOVA was conducted with mean of median RT as the dependent variable.
There was a significant main effect of condition (
(1, 61) = 6.65
= .013, and a significant main effect of side (
(1, 61) =
134.98 p <.001. There was also a significant interaction of
(1, 61) = 51.13
<.001. Pair-wise planned
comparisons (t- tests) revealed that participants’ RTs were significantly
side trials in the
(61) = 12.30
showing no object-based IOR in the
condition as responses were quickest for the cued object (in new location).
Observers were also significantly faster to react to
side trials compared to
side trials in the
61) = 5.24
<.001. Successfully evidencing IOR
for the object after a perceptual bounce facilitated by sound. Thus, sound may
be able to influence IOR in visual perception, but without concise evidence of
object-based IOR in the
condition, this cannot be inferred.
The aim of the study was to investigate
whether the addition of sound could alter visual perception.
To achieve this, the Posner style cuing task
(1980) was modified with a bounce/stream paradigm Sanabria et al. (2004), in an
attempt to influence the perception of IOR. Contrary to expectation, the
results yielded no evidence of IOR (consistent with a stream) as evidenced by
Sanabria et al. (2004), since object based IOR should have travelled with the
object creating an advantage for the side originally cued. This would be
consistent with object-based IOR as evidenced by Tipper et al. (1991). Rather,
observers were faster on the different side (with the cued object). Interestingly,
for the sound condition, IOR was demonstrated (in line with the perception of a
bounce) suggesting that IOR can be influenced by the addition of sound.
Unfortunately, without coherence between conditions this cannot be concluded.
Therefore, further consideration of the results is required.
Given that IOR is a known component of
spatial attention that can be produced in most attentional experiments (Klein
and Ivanoff, 2008) and that it still applies even when objects move (Tipper et
al., 1991) and can be shown between different sensory modalities, (Spence et
al., 2000), it is likely that methodological issues account for the findings.
One contingency could be eye position. The central fixation point is an
essential element in all covert attention tasks and whilst the importance of
central fixation was conveyed, eye movements were not tracked and therefore
cannot be relied upon. Posner and Cohen (1984) for example demonstrated that
IOR requires that attention is drawn back to the fixation point after cuing.
Consequently, if eyes move within the trial, the inhibitory effect could remain
at the environmental position of where the cue had occurred. This is consistent
with both findings, and consistent with the reduced effect (
) evidenced in the sound
compared to the silent condition since, regardless of the perceptual set, the
same side (cue to target) would be inhibited if this was the last place of
energy. Thus in the sound condition, the findings, may not have arisen from multisensory
visual perception, but from failure to remain fixated.
Equally, Tipper et al. (1991) evidenced
that IOR in static displays has an additional inhibitory component compared to
moving displays. Thus with moving displays, covert attention may be more easily
disrupted since object-based attention requires additional mental resources
For example, during Tipper
et al. (1991) moving paradigm, the objects rotated around the fixation point
remaining at an equidistant point from fixation at all times. Moreover, at no
point were they occluded. In the current paradigm however, the objects were
occluded behind the fixation area. Therefore, if the inhibitory tagging was
disrupted during the period of occlusion IOR may have diminished. This is possible
because ambiguity of movement has been highlighted as a potential pitfall in
moving displays (Reppa, Schmidt and Leek, 2012). Tipper, Brehaut and Driver
(1990) however, evidenced object based IOR with occluding columns. Therefore,
interference may have increased in this instance, compared to Tipper et al.
(1991) by the
proximity of the objects
to fixation, which changed throughout the task substantially and even connected
with the object in which fixation was presented.
Importantly, the substantial changes in
movement could have altered the attentional spread beyond fixation to include
the incoming discs (Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974), especially since the similarity
of surrounding features is known to interfere (LaBerge, 1983) and that distance
between objects is also crucial (Franconeri, Johnathan and Scimeca, 2010).
Thus, without any extra perceptual cues available, and coupled with objects
similarity, it is conceivable that these factors compromised covert attention
more markedly in the silent block compared to the sound block. Moreover, the
task combination may have diminished the inhibitory tagging (Egly, et al.,
1994) by interference (Franconeri et al., 2010). However, without tracking eye
movements, this claim cannot be substantiated.
Evidencing eye movements was one of the
criticisms of Spence et al. (2000) during his supra-modal paradigm; the use of
eye tracking with sub-set of participants in a further replication of this
study would be beneficial. More importantly, with eye movements accounted for,
the other methodological issues such as ambiguity of movement across fixation
could be considered. However, as demonstrated in other cross-modal
investigations (Kennett, Spence and Driver, 2002), visual restriction can be an
important feature in studying multisensory perception. Indeed, for the
perception of a stream/bounce effect, the visual restriction is warranted.
Thus, it may be possible to just relocate the ambiguity to a location away from
fixation. The movement would still need to be directed across both left and
right visual hemifields (
Sereno and Kosslyn, 1991
), so as not to increase the difficulty
of the task. However, the space between objects and fixation could be changed
to reduce the likelihood of interference (Franconeri et al., 2010).
For example, Tipper, Jordan and Weaver (1999) evidenced
scene-based inhibition at different multiple locations on the screen; thus, if
the display was moved equidistantly above fixation, it may be possible to
eradicate or at least re-evaluate the aforementioned possible limitations.
In conclusion, the demonstration of IOR
in a cross modal attention paradigm such as this can be difficult to produce.
However, the results show promise towards the cross-modal influence of sound
upon spatial attention. Given that the display used has important
methodological constraints, a change in the spatial qualities of the display is
needed to rule out interference between fixation and covert attention. Equally,
since eye movements were not ruled out, future investigations would need to
also factor eye tracking into the methodology. With these alterations, and the
eventual observation of the object-based IOR, it would be possible to advance
the understanding on how the influence of sound can affect perception and
attention. In addition, it would facilitate better understanding of the cross
modal elements of spatial attention more generally.
Chen, Z. (2012) ‘Object-based attention: A tutorial review’,
Attention Perception & Psychophysics,
74(5), pp. 784-802.
Duncan, J. (1984) ‘Selective attention and the organization
or visual information’,
Experimental Psychology: General,
113(4), pp. 501-517.
Egly, R., Driver, J. and Rafal, R. D. (1994) ‘Shifting
visual attention between objects and locations: Evidence from normal and
parietal lesion subjects’,
Experimental Psychology: General,
123(2), pp. 161-177.
Eriksen, B. A. and Eriksen, C. W. (1974) ‘Effects of noise
letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task’,
Perception & Psychophysics,
Franconeri, S. I., Johnathon, S. V. and Scimeca, J. M.
(2010) T’racking multiple objects is limited only by object spacing, not by
speed, time or capacity’
21(7), pp. 920-925.
Hairston W. D. et al. (2003) ‘Visual localisation ability
influences cross-modal bias’,
15(1), pp. 20-29.
Kennett, S., Spence, C., and Driver, J. (2002) ‘Visuo-tactile
links in covert exogenous spatial attention remap across changes in unseen hand
Perception & Psychophysics,
Klein, R. M. and Ivanoff, K. (2008) ‘Inhibition of return’,
Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
LaBerge, D. (1983) ‘The Spatial Extent of Attention to
Letters and Words’,
Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance,
9(3), pp. 371-379.
Posner, M. I. (1980) ‘Orienting of attention’,
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
32(1), pp. 3-25.
Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984) ‚
Components of visual orienting’, in: Bouma, H. and Bouwhuis,
Attention and Performance X
London: Lawrence Eplbaum Associates, pp. 531-556.
Reppa, I., Schmidt, W. C., and Leek, E.
‘Successes and failures in
producing attentional object-based cueing effects
Attention Perception &
74(1), pp. 43-69.
Sanabria, D. Et al. (2004) ‘
Bouncing or streaming? Exploring the influence of auditory
cues on the interpretation of ambiguous visual motion’,
Experimental Brain Research,
157(4), pp. 537-541.
Sekuler, A. B. and Lau, R. (1997) ‘
alters visual motion perception’,
385(6614), p. 308.
Sereno, A. B. and Kosslyn, S. M. (1991) ‘Discrimination
within and between hemifields: a new
constraint on theories of attention’,
Spence, C. et al. (2000) ‘Inhibition of return is
supramodal: A demonstration between all possible pairings of vision, touch and
Experimental Brain Research,
Tipper, S. P., Brehaut, J. C. and Driver, J. (1990) ‘Selection
of moving and static objects for the control of spatially directed action’,
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance
Tipper, S. P., Driver, J. and Weaver, B. (1991) ‘Object-centred
inhibition of return of visual attention’,
Journal of Experimental Psychology
A, 43(2), pp. 289-298.
Tipper, S. P., Jordan, H. and Weaver, B. (1999) ‘Scene-based
and object-centred inhibition of return: Evidence for dual orienting
61(1), pp. 50-60.
© Charlotte Clark.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Licence (CC BY).