The effect of unattended visual and auditory words on cross-modal naming

Sen, Asok K.; Posner, Michael I.

doi:10.3758/bf03336908

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The facilitation for REDUNDANT trial types is in accord with previous studies that have indicated that there are redundancy gains when the same word is presented to the attended and unattended modalities (Lewis, 1972;Sen & Posner, 1979). Inclusion of BOTH trial types here allows for an analysis of different sources contributing to these redundancy gains.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Lewis (1972) and Sen and Posner (1979) have found facilitation in pronunciation latency for attended words in either modality when the same word is simultaneously presented on the unattended modality. Similarly, when an unattended auditory digit is the same as the attended visual digit, pronunciation latency for the digit is facilitated (Greenwald, 1970;Mynatt, 1977).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Processing of written and spoken words: Evidence for common coding

Hanson

1981

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Common processing systems involved during reading and listening were investigated. Semantic, phonological, and physical systems were examined using an experimental procedure that involved simultaneous presentation of two words: one visual and one auditory. Subjects were instructed to attend to only one modality and to make responses on the basis of words presented in that modality. Influence of unattended words on semantic and phonological decisions indicated that these processing systems are common to the two modalities. Decisions in the physical task were based on modality-specific codes operating prior to the convergence of information from the two modalities.Studies concerned with word processing have tended to approach the topic by investigating either reading or listening, exclusively, largely ignoring the question of common processing systems for the two tasks. Yet, at some level of stimulus analysis, printed words and spoken words must share processing. The present research examines the relationship between the internal codes involved during reading and during listening and investigates at what level! of stimulus analysis it might be possible to merge the research from these two areas.Evidence from bisensory tasks bears upon the question of common semantic coding of visually and auditorily presented words. Lewis (1972) and Sen and Posner (1979) have found facilitation in pronunciation latency for attended words in either modality when the same word is simultaneously presented on the unattended modality. Similarly, when an unattended auditory digit is the same as the attended visual digit, pronunciation latency for the digit is facilitated (Greenwald, 1970;Mynatt, 1977). It has also been shown that unattended visual (Lewis, 1972) and auditory (Greenwald, 1970;Mynatt, 1977) words and digits interfere with pronunciation of items presented to the attended modality when the attended and unattended items are semantically related. This influence of semantically related unattended words indicates automatic activation of a semantic code that is shared by the two modalities. This paper is based on a dissertation submitted to the graduate school of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of degree requirements. I am grateful to Michael Posner for his guidance throughout this project. I also wish to thank Ursula Bellugi and Eleanor Gibson for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript and Fred Chang for his assistance with data analysis. The investigation and writing of this report were supported by National Institute of General Medical Sciences Training Grant 5 TOI GM 02165 BHSand by National Institutes of Health National Research Service Award I F32 NS06l09-{)1 from the Division of Neurosciences and Communicative Disorders and Stroke. Requests for reprints should be sent to Haskins Laboratories, 270 Crown Street, New Haven, CT 06510.Copyright 1981 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 93During reading and listening tasks, is there similarly automatic activation of a shared phonological code? For the pr...

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 71%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing of written and spoken words: Evidence for common coding

Hanson

1981

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2. Mean choice reaction times for words related and unrelfiled to a fcite'gory when presented in visual, at'difrory, or simultaneous conditions DISCUSSION A« has been reported before (13,14,17,18) performance improved when the information presented together in two modalities was identical or resulted in the same response. Performance was worse when the stimuli were different and indicated conflicting responses (12,14,17,13).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Mean choice reaction times for words related and unrelfiled to a fcite'gory when presented in visual, at'difrory, or simultaneous conditions DISCUSSION A« has been reported before (13,14,17,18) performance improved when the information presented together in two modalities was identical or resulted in the same response. Performance was worse when the stimuli were different and indicated conflicting responses (12,14,17,13). A consistent finding of studies which have examined bimodal conditions has been that RT to a simple visual stimulus is facilitated when an accessory auditory stimulus is presented simultaneously or within close temporal proximity with the visual stimulus (6)(7)(8)(19)(20)(21)(22).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…There seems to be growing evidence that individuals can process two or more meaningful messages presented simultaneously in the visual and auditory modalities. For example, Lewis (12) as well as Sen and Posner (13) found improved reaction time for attended words in either modality when the same word was presented simultaneously to the unattended modality. Investigators have been concerneZd with determining conditions under which facilitation or inhibition occur.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multimodal versus Unimodal Information Processing of Words

Lewandowski¹,

Hursh²,

Kobus³

1985

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sonarmen are constantly confronted with information presented simultaneously through different sensory modalities. Verbal information is one type of input to which they are exposed. Little is known regarding the effect of undirected attention when verbal information is presented siinultaneously to the auditory and visual modality. The question of interest is how do unimodal and nail timodal presentation conditions differentially affect, performance? FINDINGS The superiority of any particular modality depends upon the task requirements, response demands and the complexity of the stimuli. Multimodal stimulation facilitates the RT of the slower unimodal 'presentation wMle providing little if any facilitation to the faster uniuiod&l approach. APPLICATION Sonarmen are exposed to various types of information. Reports of this study and previous studies have shown that the results are task dependent. Therefore, it is important to determine how different types cf stimuli interact with modes of presentation and affect sonar performance.

show abstract

The dog’s meow: asymmetrical interaction in cross-modal object recognition

Yuval-Greenberg

Deouell

2008

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little is known on cross-modal interaction in complex object recognition. The factors influencing this interaction were investigated using simultaneous presentation of pictures and vocalizations of animals. In separate blocks, the task was to identify either the visual or the auditory stimulus, ignoring the other modality. The pictures and the sounds were congruent (same animal), incongruent (different animals) or neutral (animal with meaningless stimulus). Performance in congruent trials was better than in incongruent trials, regardless of whether subjects attended the visual or the auditory stimuli, but the effect was larger in the latter case. This asymmetry persisted with addition of a long delay after the stimulus and before the response. Thus, the asymmetry cannot be explained by a lack of processing time for the auditory stimulus. However, the asymmetry was eliminated when low-contrast visual stimuli were used. These findings suggest that when visual stimulation is highly informative, it affects auditory recognition more than auditory stimulation affects visual recognition. Nevertheless, this modality dominance is not rigid; it is highly influenced by the quality of the presented information.

show abstract

The effect of unattended visual and auditory words on cross-modal naming

Cited by 6 publications

References 7 publications

Processing of written and spoken words: Evidence for common coding

Processing of written and spoken words: Evidence for common coding

Multimodal versus Unimodal Information Processing of Words

The dog’s meow: asymmetrical interaction in cross-modal object recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About