Cargando…

Semantic Incongruency Interferes With Endogenous Attention in Cross-Modal Integration of Semantically Congruent Objects

Efficient multisensory integration is often influenced by other cognitive processes including, but not limited to, semantic congruency and focused endogenous attention. Semantic congruency can re-allocate processing resources to the location of a congruent stimulus, while attention can prioritize th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spilcke-Liss, Julia, Zhu, Jun, Gluth, Sebastian, Spezio, Michael, Gläscher, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6749080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31572138
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2019.00053
_version_ 1783452205004619776
author Spilcke-Liss, Julia
Zhu, Jun
Gluth, Sebastian
Spezio, Michael
Gläscher, Jan
author_facet Spilcke-Liss, Julia
Zhu, Jun
Gluth, Sebastian
Spezio, Michael
Gläscher, Jan
author_sort Spilcke-Liss, Julia
collection PubMed
description Efficient multisensory integration is often influenced by other cognitive processes including, but not limited to, semantic congruency and focused endogenous attention. Semantic congruency can re-allocate processing resources to the location of a congruent stimulus, while attention can prioritize the integration of multi-sensory stimuli under focus. Here, we explore the robustness of this phenomenon in the context of three stimuli, two of which are in the focus of endogenous attention. Participants completed an endogenous attention task with a stimulus compound consisting of 3 different objects: (1) a visual object (V) in the foreground, (2) an auditory object (A), and (3) a visual background scene object (B). Three groups of participants focused their attention on either the visual object and auditory sound (Group VA, n = 30), the visual object and the background (VB, n = 27), or the auditory sound and the background (AB, n = 30), and judged the semantic congruency of the objects under focus. Congruency varied systematically across all 3 stimuli: All stimuli could be semantically incongruent (e.g., V, ambulance; A, church bell; and B, swimming-pool) or all could be congruent (e.g., V, lion; A, roar; and B, savannah), or two objects could be congruent with the remaining one incongruent to the other two (e.g., V, duck; A, quack; and B, phone booth). Participants exhibited a distinct pattern of errors: when participants attended two congruent objects (e.g., group VA: V, lion; A, roar), in the presence of an unattended, incongruent third object (e.g., B, bath room) they tended to make more errors than in any other stimulus combination. Drift diffusion modeling of the behavioral data revealed a significantly smaller drift rate in two-congruent-attended condition, indicating slower evidence accumulation, which was likely due to interference from the unattended, incongruent object. Interference with evidence accumulation occurred independently of which pair of objects was in the focus of attention, which suggests that the vulnerability of congruency judgments to incongruent unattended distractors is not affected by sensory modalities. A control analysis ruled out the simple explanation of a negative response bias. These findings implicate that our perceptual system is highly sensitive to semantic incongruencies even when they are not endogenously attended.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6749080
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67490802019-09-30 Semantic Incongruency Interferes With Endogenous Attention in Cross-Modal Integration of Semantically Congruent Objects Spilcke-Liss, Julia Zhu, Jun Gluth, Sebastian Spezio, Michael Gläscher, Jan Front Integr Neurosci Neuroscience Efficient multisensory integration is often influenced by other cognitive processes including, but not limited to, semantic congruency and focused endogenous attention. Semantic congruency can re-allocate processing resources to the location of a congruent stimulus, while attention can prioritize the integration of multi-sensory stimuli under focus. Here, we explore the robustness of this phenomenon in the context of three stimuli, two of which are in the focus of endogenous attention. Participants completed an endogenous attention task with a stimulus compound consisting of 3 different objects: (1) a visual object (V) in the foreground, (2) an auditory object (A), and (3) a visual background scene object (B). Three groups of participants focused their attention on either the visual object and auditory sound (Group VA, n = 30), the visual object and the background (VB, n = 27), or the auditory sound and the background (AB, n = 30), and judged the semantic congruency of the objects under focus. Congruency varied systematically across all 3 stimuli: All stimuli could be semantically incongruent (e.g., V, ambulance; A, church bell; and B, swimming-pool) or all could be congruent (e.g., V, lion; A, roar; and B, savannah), or two objects could be congruent with the remaining one incongruent to the other two (e.g., V, duck; A, quack; and B, phone booth). Participants exhibited a distinct pattern of errors: when participants attended two congruent objects (e.g., group VA: V, lion; A, roar), in the presence of an unattended, incongruent third object (e.g., B, bath room) they tended to make more errors than in any other stimulus combination. Drift diffusion modeling of the behavioral data revealed a significantly smaller drift rate in two-congruent-attended condition, indicating slower evidence accumulation, which was likely due to interference from the unattended, incongruent object. Interference with evidence accumulation occurred independently of which pair of objects was in the focus of attention, which suggests that the vulnerability of congruency judgments to incongruent unattended distractors is not affected by sensory modalities. A control analysis ruled out the simple explanation of a negative response bias. These findings implicate that our perceptual system is highly sensitive to semantic incongruencies even when they are not endogenously attended. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-09-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6749080/ /pubmed/31572138 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2019.00053 Text en Copyright © 2019 Spilcke-Liss, Zhu, Gluth, Spezio and Gläscher. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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) and the copyright owner(s) 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 Neuroscience
Spilcke-Liss, Julia
Zhu, Jun
Gluth, Sebastian
Spezio, Michael
Gläscher, Jan
Semantic Incongruency Interferes With Endogenous Attention in Cross-Modal Integration of Semantically Congruent Objects
title Semantic Incongruency Interferes With Endogenous Attention in Cross-Modal Integration of Semantically Congruent Objects
title_full Semantic Incongruency Interferes With Endogenous Attention in Cross-Modal Integration of Semantically Congruent Objects
title_fullStr Semantic Incongruency Interferes With Endogenous Attention in Cross-Modal Integration of Semantically Congruent Objects
title_full_unstemmed Semantic Incongruency Interferes With Endogenous Attention in Cross-Modal Integration of Semantically Congruent Objects
title_short Semantic Incongruency Interferes With Endogenous Attention in Cross-Modal Integration of Semantically Congruent Objects
title_sort semantic incongruency interferes with endogenous attention in cross-modal integration of semantically congruent objects
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6749080/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31572138
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2019.00053
work_keys_str_mv AT spilckelissjulia semanticincongruencyinterfereswithendogenousattentionincrossmodalintegrationofsemanticallycongruentobjects
AT zhujun semanticincongruencyinterfereswithendogenousattentionincrossmodalintegrationofsemanticallycongruentobjects
AT gluthsebastian semanticincongruencyinterfereswithendogenousattentionincrossmodalintegrationofsemanticallycongruentobjects
AT speziomichael semanticincongruencyinterfereswithendogenousattentionincrossmodalintegrationofsemanticallycongruentobjects
AT glascherjan semanticincongruencyinterfereswithendogenousattentionincrossmodalintegrationofsemanticallycongruentobjects