Latency of locating lights and sounds.

We, Simpson

doi:10.1037/h0032449

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One approach to this problem is to use a discrimination task that is the same in the two modalities (or at least is as nearly the same as possible, given the absolute necessity ofpresenting stimuli in different modalities). One task which might fit this criterion is the spatial discrimination task (left vs. right) previously used by several other researchers for studying modality selection (e.g., Klein, 1977;Posner et aI., 1976;Simpson, 1972). One cannot be certain a priori that this discrimination of azimuth will constitute exactly the same task for targets in the two modalities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…B. Kristofferson, 1965;M. W Kristofferson, 1967;Mowrer et aI., 1940;Phipps-Yonas, 1984;Simpson, 1972;Waldbaum et aI., 1975). In contrast to the vast majority of such prior studies, the modality cues used in this experiment provided no spatial information with regard to the likely target location, as auditory and visual targets appeared in the same set of widely dispersed possible locations.…”

Section: Experiments 2 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…B. Kristofferson, 1965;M. W Kristofferson, 1967;Phipps-Yonas, 1984;Simpson, 1972;Waldbaum, Sutton, & Kerr, 1975; though note that some null results have been reported, e.g., Eijkman & Vendrik, 1965;Mulligan & Shaw, 1981;Shiffrin & Grantham, 1974). Unfortunately, it is possible to explain all of the positive modality-cuing results in nonattentional terms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality

Spence

Driver

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

175

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptual judgments can be affected by expectancies regarding the likely target modality. This has been taken as evidence for selective attention to particular modalities, but alternative accounts remain possible in terms of response priming, criterion shifts, stimulus repetition, and spatial confounds. We examined whether attention to a sensory modality would still be apparent when these alternatives were ruled out. Subjects made a speeded detection response (Experiment 1), an intensity or color discrimination (Experiment 2), or a spatial discrimination response (Experiments 3 and 4) for auditory and visual targets presented in a random sequence. On each trial, a symbolic visual cue predicted the likely target modality. Responses were always more rapid and accurate for targets presented in the expected versus unexpected modality, implying that people can indeed selectively attend to the auditory or visual modalities. When subjects were cued to both the probable modality of a target and its likely spatiallocation (Experiment 4), separable modality-cuing and spatial-cuing effects were observed. These studies introduce appropriate methods for distinguishing attention to a modality from the confounding factors that have plagued previous normal and clinical research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments 2 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality

Spence

Driver

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

175

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several varieties of this possibility may be distinguished. (1) Information from non-visual sensory modalities could be converted into a visual format in the process of encoding, so that stored three-dimensional spatial information bears the properties of visual space even if vision is not the original source modality (Auerbach & Sperling, 1974;Platt & Warren, 1972;Shelton & McNamara, 2001Simpson, 1972;Warren, 1970). (2) Information from multiple modalities could be integrated into a unified spatial representation, in which individual locations remain labeled according to their source modality (Yamamoto & Shelton, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misperception of exocentric directions in auditory space

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have demonstrated large errors (over 30°) in visually perceived exocentric directions (the direction between two objects that are both displaced from the observer's location; e.g., Philbeck et al., in press). Here, we investigated whether a similar pattern occurs in auditory space. Blindfolded participants either attempted to aim a pointer at auditory targets (an exocentric task) or gave a verbal estimate of the egocentric target azimuth. Targets were located at 20° to 160°a zimuth in the right hemispace. For comparison, we also collected pointing and verbal judgments for visual targets. We found that exocentric pointing responses exhibited sizeable undershooting errors, for both auditory and visual targets, that tended to become more strongly negative as azimuth increased (up to −19° for visual targets at 160°). Verbal estimates of the auditory and visual target azimuths, however, showed a dramatically different pattern, with relatively small overestimations of azimuths in the rear hemispace. At least some of the differences between verbal and pointing responses appear to be due to the frames of reference underlying the responses; when participants used the pointer to reproduce the egocentric target azimuth rather than the exocentric target direction relative to the pointer, the pattern of pointing errors more closely resembled that seen in verbal reports. These results show that there are similar distortions in perceiving exocentric directions in visual and auditory space.Keywords manual pointing; auditory space perception; perception / action; perceived direction; spatial cognition In light of the seemingly effortless accuracy with which we are typically able to interact with objects in the world, the fact that there are sizeable misperceptions of spatial relationships, even in the nearby environment, is remarkable (e.g., Doumen, Kappers, & Koenderink, 2005;Philbeck, 2000). A particularly striking example comes from distortions in perceiving exocentric directions-that is, perceiving the direction from one object to another, both of which are displaced from one's current viewing location. One way to study this involves asking observers to aim a pointer mounted just in front of the body at a nearby target (Haber, Haber, Penningroth, Novak, & Radgowski, 1993;Haun, Allen, & Wedell, 2005;Montello, Richardson, Hegarty, & Provenza, 1999). We have demonstrated large errors in this task, even when both the pointer and the target are within arm's reach (Philbeck, Sargent, Arthur & Dopkins, in press). When participants point without vision, mean errors increase with target eccentricity and peak at −32° for targets at 150° azimuth (i.e., the direction in a horizontal plane Corresponding Author: Joeanna C. Arthur, Department of Psychology, George Washington University, 2125 G. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA, e-mail: jarthur@gwu.edu, voice: 202-994-7008, fax: 202-994-1602. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a serv...

show abstract

“…The result is that the literatu re is filled with many studies dealing with only a single dimension of feedback. Some examples of the m ore popular dimensions looked at are immediate vs. delayed feedback (Beeson , 1973;Christian , 1972;Robinson & KuIp, 1970;Sassenwyath & Younge, 1969), knowledge of right vs. wrong responses (Longstreth 1970 ;Merrill, 1970 ;W~ke, 1970), verba l vs. nonverbal (Lair & Smith, 1970;Simpson , 1972), personal vs. impersonal (Weidner , 1968), accurate vs. inaccurate (Griswold, 1970), information content (Berman , Fraser , & T heious, 1970), and frequency (Ivancevich , Donnelly, & Lyon , 1970).…”

Section: Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%