The effect of bimodal divided attention on inhibition of return with audiovisual targets
(2.Institute of Aviation Human Factors and Ergonomics, Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Guanghan, China 618307)
【Abstract】Inhibition of return (IOR) has been greatly explored in the visual or auditory modality. Investigations on spatial IOR even have extended to the cross-modal link between visual and auditory information processing. The present study examined the generation and variation of IOR effects when targets from the visual and auditory modalities were presented simultaneously (audiovisual targets). In addition, it explored the effect of bimodal divided attention on IOR with audiovisual targets by directing the attention to different modality to form two conditions of attention. The present study consisted of 3 experiments. In these experiments, we mainly manipulated the target modalities (including visual, auditory, and audiovisual modalities) and cue validities (including cued, neutral, uncued). Thirty-seven college students in Liaoning province were recruited in Exp. 1. The visual (V) target was white horizontal square wave grating (4° × 4°; the spatial frequency was 1 cycle/degree), the auditory (A) target (duration of 100 ms) was a 1 000 Hz sinusoidal tone presented by the speakers. The audiovisual (AV) target was composed by the simultaneous presentation of both the visual and the auditory stimuli. During the experiment the fixation stimulus was presented for 800–1 000 ms in the center of the monitor. Following the fixation stimulus, uninformative exogenous visual spatial cues were presented between 400–600 ms prior to the onset of targets for 100 ms at the left or right location. Then, the probability of the target (A, V, or AV) appeared for 100 ms in the center was 0.6 (No-go trials), the probability of the target may occur on left or right location was 0.2 (Go trials). The participants were instructed to pay attention to both V and A modalities, then respond to the target stimulus in the left or right location by pressing the response button as quickly and accurately as possible. Thirty-two college students were recruited in Exp. 2. The auditory stimuli were unattended and presented peripherally. Thirty-nine college students were recruited in Exp. 3. The auditory stimuli were unattended and presented centrally, the others were identical to that in Exp. 2. Based on the results of accuracy (ACC), it can be seen that the overall ACC was very high in Exp. 1. The mean ACC of AV targets was significantly higher than to either V or A targets. According to the results of reaction times (RTs), the mean RT of AV targets were significantly faster than to either V or A targets as expected, indicating the appearance of the bimodal advancement effect. For V targets, the RTs in the cued condition were slower than those in the uncued condition, demonstrated a typical IOR effect. There weren’t IOR effect elicited by AV targets when paying attention to both V and A modalities (Exp. 1). From the results of the relative amount of multisensory response enhancement (rMRE), we found a larger rMRE in the cued condition than that in the uncued condition. In Exp. 2 and Exp. 3, we found the comparable IOR with V and AV targets when the simultaneous auditory stimuli were unattended and presented peripherally or centrally. In addition, we found the comparable rMRE with V and AV targets when the simultaneous auditory stimuli were unattended and presented peripherally or centrally. These results suggested that the IOR effect elicited by AV targets was reduced when paying attention to multiple modalities. However, when auditory stimuli were unattended, there was no difference between the visual and audiovisual IOR effects. Based on the aforementioned findings, it indicated that bimodal divided attention can influence IOR with audiovisual targets.
【Keywords】 bimodal divided attention; modality-specific selective attention; inhibition of return; audiovisual target; cue-target paradigm;
(Translated by DU XM)
Beck, D. M., & Kastner, S. (2009). Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. Vision Research, 49 (10), 1154–1165. Beck, D. M., & Kastner, S. (2009). Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing competition in the human brain. Vision Research, 49 (10), 1154–1165.
Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51 (13), 1484–1525. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51 (13), 1484–1525.
Chica, A. B., Lupianez, J., & Bartolomeo, P. (2006). Dissociating inhibition of return from endogenous orienting of spatial attention: Evidence from detection and discrimination tasks. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23 (7), 1015–1034.
Eimer, M., & Driver, J. (2001). Crossmodal links in endogenous and exogenous spatial attention: Evidence from event-related brain potential studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review, 25 (6), 497–511.
Frassinetti, F., Bolognini, N., & Làdavas, E. (2002). Enhancement of visual perception by crossmodal visuo-auditory interaction. Experimental Brain Research, 147 (3), 332–343.
Gao, Y., Li, Q., Yang, W., Yang, J., Tang, X., & Wu, J. (2014). Effects of ipsilateral and bilateral auditory stimuli on audiovisual integration: A behavioral and event-related potential study. Neuroreport, 25 (9), 668–675.
Klein, R. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334 (6181), 430–431.
Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4 (4), 138–147.
Lupiáñez, J., Milán, E. G., Tornay, F. J., Madrid, E., & Tudela, P. (1997). Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later. Perception & Psychophysics, 59 (8), 1241–1254.
Lupiáñez, J., Ruz, M., Funes, M. J., & Milliken, B. (2007). The manifestation of attentional capture: Facilitation or IOR depending on task demands. Psychological Research, 71 (1), 77–91.
Matusz, P. J., & Eimer, M. (2011). Multisensory enhancement of attentional capture in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18 (5), 904–909.
Mcdonald, J. J., & Ward, L. M. (1999). Spatial relevance determines facilitatory and inhibitory effects of auditory covert spatial orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25 (5), 1234–1252.
Meredith, M. A., & Stein, B. E. (1986). Visual, auditory, and somatosensory convergence on cells in superior colliculus results in multisensory integration. Journal of Neurophysiology, 56 (3), 640–662.
Mishra, J., Bavelier, D., & Gazzaley, A. (2012). How to assess gaming-induced benefits on attention and working memory. Games for Health Journal, 1 (3), 192–198.
Mozolic, J. L., Hugenschmidt, C. E., Peiffer, A. M., & Laurienti, P. J. (2008). Modality-specific selective attention attenuates multisensory integration. Experimental Brain Research, 184 (1), 39–52.
Peng, X., Chang, R, S., Li, Q., Wang, A, J., & Tang, X, Y. (2019). Visually induced inhibition of return affects the audiovisual integration under different SOA conditions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51 (7), 759–771. (in Chinese)
Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. Attention and performance X: Control of Language Processes, 32, 531–556.
Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S., & Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2 (3), 211–228.
Pratt, J., & Fischer, M. H. (2002). Examining the role of the fixation cue in inhibition of return. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 56 (4), 294–301.
Pratt, J., Kingstone, A., & Khoe, W. (1997). Inhibition of return in location-and identity-based choice decision tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 59 (6), 964–971.
Prime, D. J., Tata, M. S., & Ward, L. M. (2003). Event-related potential evidence for attentional inhibition of return in audition. Neuroreport, 14 (3), 393–397.
Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., & Rosenquist, J. N. (1996). Auditory cues and inhibition of return: The importance of oculomotor activation. Experimental Brain Research, 112 (1), 119–126.
Roggeveen, A. B., Prime, D. J., & Ward, L. M. (2005). Inhibition of return and response repetition within and between modalities. Experimental Brain Research, 167 (1), 86–94.
Santangelo, V., & Spence, C. (2007). Multisensory cues capture spatial attention regardless of perceptual load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33 (6), 1311–1321.
Satel, J., Hilchey, M. D., Wang, Z. G., Story, R., & Klein, R. M. (2013). The effects of ignored versus foveated cues upon inhibition of return: An event-related potential study. Attention, Perception, &Psychophysics, 75 (1), 29–40.
Schmitt, M., Postma, A., & de Haan, E. (2000). Interactions between exogenous auditory and visual spatial attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 53 (1), 105–130.
Senkowski, D., Saint-Amour, D., Höfle, M., & Foxe, J. J. (2011). Multisensory interactions in early evoked brain activity follow the principle of inverse effectiveness. Neuroimage, 56 (4), 2200–2208.
Slagter, H. A., Prinssen, S., Reteig, L. C., & Mazaheri, A. (2016). Facilitation and inhibition in attention: Functional dissociation of pre-stimulus alpha activity, P1, and N1 components. Neuroimage, 125 (6), 25–35.
Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1998). Inhibition of return following an auditory cue. The role of central reorienting events. Experimental Brain Research, 118 (3), 352–360.
Spence, C., Lloyd, D., Mcglone, F., Nicholls, M. E. R., & Driver, J. (2000). Inhibition of return is supramodal: A demonstration between all possible pairings of vision, touch, and audition. Experimental Brain Research, 134 (1), 42–48.
Talsma, D., & Woldorff, M. G. (2005). Selective attention and multisensory integration: Multiple phases of effects on the evoked brain activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 (7), 1098–1114.
Tang, X., Gao, Y., Yang, W., Ren, Y., Wu, J., Ming, Z., & Wu, Q. (2019). Bimodal divided attention attenuates inhibition of return with audiovisual targets. Experimental Brain Research, 237 (4), 1093–1107.
Tang, X., Wu, J., & Shen, Y. (2016). The interactions of multisensory integration with endogenous and exogenous attention. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 61, 208–224.
van der Burg, E., Olivers, C. N. L., Bronkhorst, A. W., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Pip and pop: Nonspatial auditory signals improve spatial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34 (5), 1053–1065.
van der Burg, E., Talsma, D., Olivers, C. N., Hickey, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2011). Early multisensory interactions affect the competition among multiple visual objects. Neuroimage, 55 (3), 1208–1218.
van der Stoep, N., van der Stigchel, S., & Nijboer, T. C. W. (2015). Exogenous spatial attention decreases audiovisual integration. Attention, Perception, &Psychophysics, 77 (2), 464–482.
van der Stoep, N., van der Stigchel, S., Nijboer, T. C. W., & Spence, C. (2016). Visually induced inhibition of return affects the integration of auditory and visual information. Perception, 46 (1), 6–17.
Wu, J., Yang, J., Yu, Y., Li, Q., Nakamura, N., Shen, Y., …Abe, K. (2012). Delayed audiovisual integration of patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease compared with normal aged controls. Journal of Alzheimers Disease Jad, 32 (2), 317–328.
Zhang, M., Tang, X., & Wu, J. (2013). Blocking the link between stimulus and response at previously attended locations: Evidence for inhibitory tagging mechanism. Neuroscience and Biomedical Engineering, 1 (1), 13–21.