Age-related multisensory integration elicited by peripherally presented audiovisual stimuli

Wu, Jinglong; Yang, Weiping; Gao, Yulin; Kimura, Takahiro

doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e3283552b0f

Cited by 42 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors used a simple unimodal or bimodal detection task (Townsend et al, 2006; Peiffer et al, 2007; Hugenschmidt et al, 2009a). Other authors investigated reaction times during unimodal or bimodal localization tasks (Hugenschmidt et al, 2009b; Campbell et al, 2010; Stephen et al, 2010; Dobreva et al, 2012; Wu et al, 2012) with spatial cueing (Guerreiro et al, 2012) or using peripheral vision (Cui et al, 2010; Dobreva et al, 2012) or the ability to remember or localize a stimulus in one modality while ignoring another modality (Diederich et al, 2008; Guerreiro et al, 2014, 2015). Other authors used judgment tasks; audiovisual temporal order judgment task (Setti et al, 2011b; de Boer-Schellekens and Vroomen, 2013; Fiacconi et al, 2013), audiovisual asynchrony judgment (Chan et al, 2014a) or audiovisual n -back task (Guerreiro and Van Gerven, 2011; Guerreiro et al, 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words: OA used all audiovisual information present in the environment (Townsend et al, 2006; Peiffer et al, 2007; Diederich et al, 2008; Hugenschmidt et al, 2009b; Stephen et al, 2010; Guerreiro et al, 2012, 2014, 2015; Wu et al, 2012; DeLoss et al, 2013). Both groups showed better performance in multisensory tasks compared to unimodal tasks but OA seemed to benefit more from enriched multisensory information than YA (Diederich et al, 2008; Hugenschmidt et al, 2009b; de Boer-Schellekens and Vroomen, 2013; DeLoss et al, 2013; Guerreiro et al, 2014, 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, OA were still impaired at performing correctly in the task compared to YA. They needed more time to perform accurately in selective attention tasks compared to YA (Diederich et al, 2008; Hugenschmidt et al, 2009b; Stephen et al, 2010; DeLoss et al, 2013; Guerreiro et al, 2014, 2015) and were less accurate at localizing a target in space or detecting asynchrony compared to YA (Stephen et al, 2010; Dobreva et al, 2012; Wu et al, 2012). The effects of age on audiovisual temporal order judgment were not clear.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review

Dieuleveult

Siemonsma

Erp

et al. 2017

Front. Aging Neurosci.

147

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisensory integration (MSI) is the integration by the brain of environmental information acquired through more than one sense. Accurate MSI has been shown to be a key component of successful aging and to be crucial for processes underlying activities of daily living (ADLs). Problems in MSI could prevent older adults (OA) to age in place and live independently. However, there is a need to know how to assess changes in MSI in individuals. This systematic review provides an overview of tests assessing the effect of age on MSI in the healthy elderly population (aged 60 years and older). A literature search was done in Scopus. Articles from the earliest records available to January 20, 2016, were eligible for inclusion if assessing effects of aging on MSI in the healthy elderly population compared to younger adults (YA). These articles were rated for risk of bias with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment. Out of 307 identified research articles, 49 articles were included for final review, describing 69 tests. The review indicated that OA maximize the use of multiple sources of information in comparison to YA (20 studies). In tasks that require more cognitive function, or when participants need to adapt rapidly to a situation, or when a dual task is added to the experiment, OA have problems selecting and integrating information properly as compared to YA (19 studies). Additionally, irrelevant or wrong information (i.e., distractors) has a greater impact on OA than on YA (21 studies). OA failing to weigh sensory information properly, has not been described in previous reviews. Anatomical changes (i.e., reduction of brain volume and differences of brain areas’ recruitment) and information processing changes (i.e., general cognitive slowing, inverse effectiveness, larger time window of integration, deficits in attentional control and increased noise at baseline) can only partly explain the differences between OA and YA regarding MSI. Since we have an interest in successful aging and early detection of MSI issues in the elderly population, the identified tests form a good starting point to develop a clinically useful toolkit to assess MSI in healthy OA.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review

Dieuleveult

Siemonsma

Erp

et al. 2017

Front. Aging Neurosci.

147

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, task-irrelevant stimuli were included to prevent the participants from habituating or predicting the target stimuli and enabled the subjects to be more attentive to the stimuli. The task-irrelevant stimuli composed 20% of the total stimuli [25,26]. The task-irrelevant visual stimulus was a checkerboard.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elevated audiovisual temporal interaction in patients with migraine without aura

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPhotophobia and phonophobia are the most prominent symptoms in patients with migraine without aura. Hypersensitivity to visual stimuli can lead to greater hypersensitivity to auditory stimuli, which suggests that the interaction between visual and auditory stimuli may play an important role in the pathogenesis of migraine. However, audiovisual temporal interactions in migraine have not been well studied. Therefore, our aim was to examine auditory and visual interactions in migraine.MethodsIn this study, visual, auditory, and audiovisual stimuli with different temporal intervals between the visual and auditory stimuli were randomly presented to the left or right hemispace. During this time, the participants were asked to respond promptly to target stimuli. We used cumulative distribution functions to analyze the response times as a measure of audiovisual integration.ResultsOur results showed that audiovisual integration was significantly elevated in the migraineurs compared with the normal controls (p < 0.05); however, audiovisual suppression was weaker in the migraineurs compared with the normal controls (p < 0.05).ConclusionsOur findings further objectively support the notion that migraineurs without aura are hypersensitive to external visual and auditory stimuli. Our study offers a new quantitative and objective method to evaluate hypersensitivity to audio-visual stimuli in patients with migraine.

show abstract

“…Example 4, attend to multiple modalities and attend to multiple locations : participants are asked to attend to stimuli in multiple modalities and at multiple locations; for example, they are asked to attend to both visual and auditory stimuli regardless of the location of presentation. Consequently, responses to audiovisual stimuli are faster than those to visual or auditory stimuli (Wu et al, 2012b). Notes: The stimuli illustrated here are only examples and do not depict the actual stimuli used in the previous studies.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

The interactions of multisensory integration with endogenous and exogenous attention

Tang

Shen

2016

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Self Cite

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stimuli from multiple sensory organs can be integrated into a coherent representation through multiple phases of multisensory processing; this phenomenon is called multisensory integration. Multisensory integration can interact with attention. Here, we propose a framework in which attention modulates multisensory processing in both endogenous (goal-driven) and exogenous (stimulus-driven) ways. Moreover, multisensory integration exerts not only bottom-up but also top-down control over attention. Specifically, we propose the following: (1) endogenous attentional selectivity acts on multiple levels of multisensory processing to determine the extent to which simultaneous stimuli from different modalities can be integrated; (2) integrated multisensory events exert top-down control on attentional capture via multisensory search templates that are stored in the brain; (3) integrated multisensory events can capture attention efficiently, even in quite complex circumstances, due to their increased salience compared to unimodal events and can thus improve search accuracy; and (4) within a multisensory object, endogenous attention can spread from one modality to another in an exogenous manner.

show abstract

Age-related multisensory integration elicited by peripherally presented audiovisual stimuli

Cited by 42 publications

References 20 publications

Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review

Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review

Elevated audiovisual temporal interaction in patients with migraine without aura

The interactions of multisensory integration with endogenous and exogenous attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About