Cargando…

Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference

When different perceptual signals arising from the same physical entity are integrated, they form a more reliable sensory estimate. When such repetitive sensory signals are pitted against other competing stimuli, such as in a Stroop Task, this redundancy may lead to stronger processing that biases b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Appelbaum, Lawrence G., Donohue, Sarah E., Park, Christina J., Woldorff, Marty G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24198800
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00799
_version_ 1782289186272837632
author Appelbaum, Lawrence G.
Donohue, Sarah E.
Park, Christina J.
Woldorff, Marty G.
author_facet Appelbaum, Lawrence G.
Donohue, Sarah E.
Park, Christina J.
Woldorff, Marty G.
author_sort Appelbaum, Lawrence G.
collection PubMed
description When different perceptual signals arising from the same physical entity are integrated, they form a more reliable sensory estimate. When such repetitive sensory signals are pitted against other competing stimuli, such as in a Stroop Task, this redundancy may lead to stronger processing that biases behavior toward reporting the redundant stimuli. This bias would therefore, be expected to evoke greater incongruency effects than if these stimuli did not contain redundant sensory features. In the present paper we report that this is not the case for a set of three crossmodal, auditory-visual Stroop tasks. In these tasks participants attended to, and reported, either the visual or the auditory stimulus (in separate blocks) while ignoring the other, unattended modality. The visual component of these stimuli could be purely semantic (words), purely perceptual (colors), or the combination of both. Based on previous work showing enhanced crossmodal integration and visual search gains for redundantly coded stimuli, we had expected that relative to the single features, redundant visual features would have induced both greater visual distracter incongruency effects for attended auditory targets, and been less influenced by auditory distracters for attended visual targets. Overall, reaction times were faster for visual targets and were dominated by behavioral facilitation for the cross-modal interactions (relative to interference), but showed surprisingly little influence of visual feature redundancy. Post-hoc analyses revealed modest and trending evidence for possible increases in behavioral interference for redundant visual distracters on auditory targets, however, these effects were substantially smaller than anticipated and were not accompanied by a redundancy effect for behavioral facilitation or for attended visual targets.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3813948
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38139482013-11-06 Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference Appelbaum, Lawrence G. Donohue, Sarah E. Park, Christina J. Woldorff, Marty G. Front Psychol Psychology When different perceptual signals arising from the same physical entity are integrated, they form a more reliable sensory estimate. When such repetitive sensory signals are pitted against other competing stimuli, such as in a Stroop Task, this redundancy may lead to stronger processing that biases behavior toward reporting the redundant stimuli. This bias would therefore, be expected to evoke greater incongruency effects than if these stimuli did not contain redundant sensory features. In the present paper we report that this is not the case for a set of three crossmodal, auditory-visual Stroop tasks. In these tasks participants attended to, and reported, either the visual or the auditory stimulus (in separate blocks) while ignoring the other, unattended modality. The visual component of these stimuli could be purely semantic (words), purely perceptual (colors), or the combination of both. Based on previous work showing enhanced crossmodal integration and visual search gains for redundantly coded stimuli, we had expected that relative to the single features, redundant visual features would have induced both greater visual distracter incongruency effects for attended auditory targets, and been less influenced by auditory distracters for attended visual targets. Overall, reaction times were faster for visual targets and were dominated by behavioral facilitation for the cross-modal interactions (relative to interference), but showed surprisingly little influence of visual feature redundancy. Post-hoc analyses revealed modest and trending evidence for possible increases in behavioral interference for redundant visual distracters on auditory targets, however, these effects were substantially smaller than anticipated and were not accompanied by a redundancy effect for behavioral facilitation or for attended visual targets. Frontiers Media S.A. 2013-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3813948/ /pubmed/24198800 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00799 Text en Copyright © 2013 Appelbaum, Donohue, Park and Woldorff. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Appelbaum, Lawrence G.
Donohue, Sarah E.
Park, Christina J.
Woldorff, Marty G.
Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference
title Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference
title_full Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference
title_fullStr Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference
title_full_unstemmed Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference
title_short Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference
title_sort is one enough? the case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal stroop interference
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24198800
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00799
work_keys_str_mv AT appelbaumlawrenceg isoneenoughthecasefornonadditiveinfluencesofvisualfeaturesoncrossmodalstroopinterference
AT donohuesarahe isoneenoughthecasefornonadditiveinfluencesofvisualfeaturesoncrossmodalstroopinterference
AT parkchristinaj isoneenoughthecasefornonadditiveinfluencesofvisualfeaturesoncrossmodalstroopinterference
AT woldorffmartyg isoneenoughthecasefornonadditiveinfluencesofvisualfeaturesoncrossmodalstroopinterference