Just how important is spatial coincidence to multisensory integration? Evaluating the spatial rule

Abstract

This review addresses the question of when spatial coincidence facilitates multisensory integration in humans. According to the spatial rule (which was first formulated on the basis of neurophysiological data in anesthetized animals), multisensory integration is enhanced when stimuli in different sensory modalities are presented from the same spatial location. While the spatial rule fits with the available data from studies of overt and covert spatial attentional orienting, and from the majority of those studies in which space has been somehow relevant to the participant's task, it is inconsistent with the evidence that has emerged from the majority of multisensory studies of stimulus identification and temporal perception. Such a mixed pattern of behavioral results suggests that the spatial rule does not represent a general constraint on multisensory integration in humans. Instead, it would appear to be a much more task-dependent phenomenon than is often realized. These results, however, are broadly consistent with a distinction between the processing of "where" and "what" (or "how") information processing in the human brain.

Fibromyalgia patients and controls are equally accurate in detecting tactile stimuli while observing another in pain: an experimental study

“…Our findings corroborate previous research demonstrating that spatial coincidence plays a role in multisensory integration (Spence, 2013). In the present study, the higher proportion of correct responses in congruent as compared with incongruent trials, when pain-related information was shown, suggests that the visual system may dominate somatosensation when visual and tactile processing provide conflicting information (e.g., incongruent trials), or that vision may enhance sensitivity when providing similar information (e.g., congruent trials).…”

Multisensory top-down sets: Evidence for contingent crossmodal capture

“…By contrast, research on crossmodal (spatial) attentional control has focused primarily on bottom-up mechanisms, instead (Spence, 2013). The present study was therefore conducted in order to address this gap in the literature and to investigate whether top-down sets could also be applied in a multisensory task environment (involving visual and tactile stimulation).…”

“…To date, the debate concerning the impact of top-down sets on attentional capture has been based on unimodal studies-that is, input from only a single sensory modality has been involved (see van der Lubbe & Van der Helde, 2006, for an exception-although these authors used an audiovisual task, all of the effects that were observed could be attributed to a supramodal spatial attention; see Spence, 2013, for a review of crossmodal spatial attention; see Spence, 2010, for a review of studies challenging the automaticity of crossmodal spatialcuing effects). The present study was designed to investigate whether top-down sets are as important for the guidance of crossmodal attention as they are for the guidance of visual selective attention (see Shore & Simic, 2005, for a study of top-down influences on visuotactile integration, resulting from variations in the proportion of congruent versus incongruent stimuli in a spatial visuotactile congruency task).…”

“…Spence, 2013). Due to the fact that both stimuli (the prime and the subsequently presented target) were visible to the participants (note that in a typical response-priming experiment, the participants are normally not aware of the prime), the instruction was given to try to ignore the first stimulus and to respond as rapidly as possible to the second.…”

The Curious Incident of Attention in Multisensory Integration: Bottom-up vs. Top-down

“…On the other hand, the importance of such coincidence seems to be task dependent. Particularly, spatial proximity seems to be relevant in tasks involving spatial attention and requiring orienting responses (see Spence, 2013 for a review).…”