Pip and pop: Nonspatial auditory signals improve spatial visual search.

Abstract

Searching for an object within a cluttered, continuously changing environment can be a very time-consuming process. The authors show that a simple auditory pip drastically decreases search times for a synchronized visual object that is normally very difficult to find. This effect occurs even though the pip contains no information on the location or identity of the visual object. The experiments also show that the effect is not due to general alerting (because it does not occur with visual cues), nor is it due to top-down cuing of the visual change (because it still occurs when the pip is synchronized with distractors on the majority of trials). Instead, we propose that the temporal information of the auditory signal is integrated with the visual signal, generating a relatively salient emergent feature that automatically draws attention. Phenomenally, the synchronous pip makes the visual object pop out from its complex environment, providing a direct demonstration of spatially nonspecific sounds affecting competition in spatial visual processing.

Cross-modal associations between vision, touch, and audition influence visual search through top-down attention, not bottom-up capture

“…In contrast, in the experiment reported by Lunghi et al, the tactile gratings were spatially colocated with the visual stimuli using mirrors. Spatial proximity is a critical factor for many multisensory interactions (Alais, Newell, & Mamassian, 2010;Stein & Meredith, 1993), although there are also many examples of cross-modal interactions for which spatially proximity is not a prerequisite (Murray et al, 2005;Olivers & Van der Burg, 2008;Shams, Kamitani, & Shimojo, 2000;Van der Burg, Cass, Olivers, Theeuwes, & Alais, 2008a, 2008bViolentyev, Shimojo, & Shams, 2005).…”

“…Auditory and tactile cues have also been shown to influence visual search. This has been shown when the auditory or tactile cue was spatially informative (Bolia, D'Angelo, & McKinley, 1999;Jones, Gray, Spence, & Tan, 2008;Rudmann & Strybel, 1999), when the auditory or tactile cue was temporally synchronous with a change in color of the target (Ngo & Spence, 2010;Van der Burg, Cass, Olivers, Theeuwes, & Alais, 2010;Van der Burg, Olivers, Bronkhorst, & Theeuwes, 2008b, Van der Burg, Olivers, Bronkhorst, & Theeuwes, 2009Zannoli, Cass, Mamassian, & Alais, 2012) and when the auditory cue was semantically congruent with the target object (Iordanescu, Grabowecky, Franconeri, Theeuwes, & Suzuki, 2010;Iordanescu, Gravowecky, & Suzuki, 2011;Iordanescu, Guzman-Martinez, Grabowecky, & Suzuki, 2008).…”

Auditory, tactile, and multisensory cues facilitate search for dynamic visual stimuli

“…Spatially uninformative auditory and vibrotactile cues have also been shown to facilitate participants' visual search performance when they are temporally synchronized with a change in the target stimulus (e.g., Bolognini, Frassinetti, Serino, & Làdavas, 2005;Chan & Chan, 2006;Van der Burg, Olivers, Bronkhorst, & Theeuwes, 2008Vroomen & de Gelder, 2000). For example, Van der Burg et al (2008) measured search latencies for visual targets presented in a frequently changing central search field.…”

“…On a given trial, the color of the target and distractor stimuli changed regularly from red to green or vice versa. The participants were presented with either an auditory tone cue over headphones ( Van der Burg et al, 2008) or a vibrotactile cue to their left hand (Van der Burg et al, 2009). Either the onset of the cue was synchronized with the color change of the target stimulus or no cue was presented.…”

“…For example, Van der Burg et al (2008) measured search latencies for visual targets presented in a frequently changing central search field. The participants in these studies had to search for a horizontal or vertical line segment presented among distractor line segments oriented at 22.5º.…”