Principles of cross-modal competition: Evidence from deficits of attention

Rapp, Brenda; Hendel, Sharma K.

doi:10.3758/bf03196487

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This specificity appears to be a natural outgrowth of the highly differentiated organization of the attentional system and its interaction with cross-modal processes. The distribution of attentional resources within and across modalities and tasks is driven by competition modulated in part by specific task demands and stimulus features (Rapp and Hendel, 2003). Normally, cross-modal integration continuously interacts with the attentional system to increase the amount of convergent information available to the visual system for detecting and interpreting complex environmental events (Talsma et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?

Samar

Berger

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals deaf from early age often outperform hearing individuals in the visual periphery on attention-dependent dorsal stream tasks (e.g., spatial localization or movement detection), but sometimes show central visual attention deficits, usually on ventral stream object identification tasks. It has been proposed that early deafness adaptively redirects attentional resources from central to peripheral vision to monitor extrapersonal space in the absence of auditory cues, producing a more evenly distributed attention gradient across visual space. However, little direct evidence exists that peripheral advantages are functionally tied to central deficits, rather than determined by independent mechanisms, and previous studies using several attention tasks typically report peripheral advantages or central deficits, not both. To test the general altered attentional gradient proposal, we employed a novel divided attention paradigm that measured target localization performance along a gradient from parafoveal to peripheral locations, independent of concurrent central object identification performance in prelingually deaf and hearing groups who differed in access to auditory input. Deaf participants without cochlear implants (No-CI), with cochlear implants (CI), and hearing participants identified vehicles presented centrally, and concurrently reported the location of parafoveal (1.4°) and peripheral (13.3°) targets among distractors. No-CI participants but not CI participants showed a central identification accuracy deficit. However, all groups displayed equivalent target localization accuracy at peripheral and parafoveal locations and nearly parallel parafoveal-peripheral gradients. Furthermore, the No-CI group’s central identification deficit remained after statistically controlling peripheral performance; conversely, the parafoveal and peripheral group performance equivalencies remained after controlling central identification accuracy. These results suggest that, in the absence of auditory input, reduced central attentional capacity is not necessarily associated with enhanced peripheral attentional capacity or with flattening of a general attention gradient. Our findings converge with earlier studies suggesting that a general graded trade-off of attentional resources across the visual field does not adequately explain the complex task-dependent spatial distribution of deaf-hearing performance differences reported in the literature. Rather, growing evidence suggests that the spatial distribution of attention-mediated performance in deaf people is determined by sophisticated cross-modal plasticity mechanisms that recruit specific sensory and polymodal cortex to achieve specific compensatory processing goals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?

Samar

Berger

2017

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, cross-sensory extinction between vision and touch in neglect patient has been shown, 44 again suggesting a central supramodal attentional bottleneck. 45,46 Similarly, extinction between audition and touch has been described. 47 …”

Section: Visual Dominance During Multisensory Target Trialsmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Deployment of Intersensory Selective Attention

Gomez‐Ramirez¹,

Higgins²,

Rycroft³

et al. 2007

Clinical Neuropharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extinction can occur in visual, tactile (Moro, Zampini, & Aglioti, 2004;Vaishnavi, Calhoun, & Chatterjee, 2001), auditory (Deouell & Soroker, 2000), or olfactory modalities. Cross-modal extinction, in which presentation of an ipsilesional stimulus in one modality results in failure to detect a contralesional stimulus in a different modality, has also been well described (Farne, Iriki, & Ladavas, 2005;Rapp & Hendel, 2003;Maravita, Clarke, Husain, & Driver, 2002;Ladavas, Pavani, & Farne, 2001;Maravita, Spence, Clarke, Husain, & Driver, 2000). Motor extinction has also been reported after focal brain injury, particularly in lesions of the thalamus (Hillis et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Neural Correlates of Modality-specific Spatial Extinction

Hillis

Chang

Heidler‐Gary

et al. 2006

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sites of lesions responsible for visual, tactile, and/or motor extinction have not been clearly identified. We sought to determine the frequency of extinction in various modalities immediately after acute ischemic stroke, the rate of co-occurrence of extinction across modalities, and areas of infarct and/or hypoperfusion associated with each modality of extinction. A total of 148 patients with right supratentorial stroke were studied. In Study 1, 88 patients without hemiplegia, hemianesthesia, or visual field cuts were tested within 24 hours of onset for visual, tactile, and motor extinction, and underwent magnetic resonance diffusion and perfusion imaging. Associations between modality of extinction and areas of neural dysfunction (hypoperfusion/infarct) were identified. Of the 88 patients, 19 had only tactile extinction, 8 had only visual extinction, 12 had only motor extinction, 14 had extinction in two or more modalities, and 35 had no extinction. Tactile extinction was associated with neural dysfunction in the inferior parietal lobule; visual extinction was associated with dysfunction in the visual association cortex; and motor extinction was associated with neural dysfunction in the superior temporal gyrus. In Study 2, data from 60 patients who were excluded from Study 1 because of motor deficits were analyzed in the same way to determine whether frontal lesions contributed to visual or tactile extinction. Results again demonstrated that tactile extinction is associated with inferior parietal dysfunction, and visual extinction is associated with dysfunction of the visual association cortex. Potential accounts of the results, based on the "hemisphere rivalry" model of extinction and the limited attentional capacity model, are considered.

show abstract

Principles of cross-modal competition: Evidence from deficits of attention

Cited by 26 publications

References 45 publications

Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?

Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?

The Deployment of Intersensory Selective Attention

Neural Correlates of Modality-specific Spatial Extinction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About