Cross-modal perceptual load: the impact of modality and individual differences

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.

The Elephant in the Road: Auditory Perceptual Load Affects Driver Perception and Awareness

“…There is evidence that the perceptual load model is modality specific; for example, a PET study found that auditory perceptual load did not reduce activity in motion‐related visual areas in response to an irrelevant visual distractor (Rees, Frith, & Lavie, ). Other perceptual load studies have since supported this study, finding no evidence of cross‐modal load effects (Tellinghuisen & Nowak, ; Vroomen, Driver, & De Gelder, ; Jacoby, Hall, & Mattingley, ; Sandhu & Dyson, ). However, there is also conflicting perceptual load research that supports a supramodal view of attention (Sinnett, Costa, & Soto‐Faraco, ; Raveh & Lavie, ; Kreitz, Furley, Simons, & Memmert, ); for example, a recent MEG study found that suppression of auditory evoked activity for an irrelevant tone when participants were performing a high visual load task (Molloy, Griffiths, Chait, & Lavie, ).…”

Music, Language, and The N400: ERP Interference Patterns Across Cognitive Domains

“…), and how it relates to general concerns about working memory and attention (see also discussion in Kutas & Federmeier 26 regarding the N400 and attention). Our findings also recommend connecting this type of inquiry with work on unimodal versus cross-modal attention 72 and multi-sensory integration more broadly 73 . Participants' scores ranged from 1.00 to 4.86 on the Innovative Musical Aptitude subscale of the Brief Music Experience Questionnaire 76 .…”

Increased Early Processing of Task-Irrelevant Auditory Stimuli in Older Adults

“…This allows for limited additional capacity for the perception of task-irrelevant stimuli, resulting in diminished processing of events unrelated to task goals [1, 25]. Most of the work in support of this theory has involved unimodal, not cross-modal, paradigms [80]. Our findings raise the possibility that in cross-modal tasks, increased cognitive load of the primary visual task may influence distracter processing in a manner that is similar to increased perceptual load in unimodal tasks.…”