For novice players, the reinforcing sights and sounds of the slot machine triggered arousal on wins, where the number of credits gained was greater than the spin wager, but also on 'losses disguised as wins' where the amount 'won' was less than the spin wager. Despite the fact that players lost money on these spins, these outcomes were more arousing than regular losses where no credits were gained. Although these findings involve novice players, the heightened arousal associated with these losses may have implications for the development of problem gambling, as arousal has been viewed as a key reinforcer in gambling behaviour.

No abstract

No abstract

Visual distractor processing tends to be more pronounced when the perceptual load (PL) of a task is low compared to when it is high [perpetual load theory (PLT); Lavie in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21(3):451-468, 1995]. While PLT is well established in the visual domain, application to cross-modal processing has produced mixed results, and the current study was designed in an attempt to improve previous methodologies. First, we assessed PLT using response competition, a typical metric from the uni-modal domain. Second, we looked at the impact of auditory load on visual distractors, and of visual load on auditory distractors, within the same individual. Third, we compared individual uni- and cross-modal selective attention abilities, by correlating performance with the visual Attentional Network Test (ANT). Fourth, we obtained a measure of the relative processing efficiency between vision and audition, to investigate whether processing ease influences the extent of distractor processing. Although distractor processing was evident during both attend auditory and attend visual conditions, we found that PL did not modulate processing of either visual or auditory distractors. We also found support for a correlation between the uni-modal (visual) ANT and our cross-modal task but only when the distractors were visual. Finally, although auditory processing was more impacted by visual distractors, our measure of processing efficiency only accounted for this asymmetry in the auditory high-load condition. The results are discussed with respect to the continued debate regarding the shared or separate nature of processing resources across modalities.

Multi-modal integration often results in one modality dominating sensory perception. Such dominance is influenced by task demands, processing efficiency, and training. I assessed modality dominance between auditory and visual processing in a paradigm controlling for the first two factors while manipulating the third. In a uni-modal task auditory and visual processing was equated per individual participant. Pre and post training, participants completed a bimodal selective attention task where the relationship between relevant and irrelevant information, and the task-relevant modality changed across trials. Training in one modality was provided between pre and post-training tasks. Training resulted in non-specific speeding post-training. Pre-training, visual information impacted auditory responding more than vice versa and this pattern reversed following training, implying visual dominance pre, and auditory dominance post-training. Results suggest modality dominance is flexible and influenced by experimental design and participant abilities. Research should continue to uncover factors leading to sensory dominance by one modality.