Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research PRPF Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study examined cross-modal selective attention using a task-switching paradigm. In a series of experiments, we presented lateralized visual and auditory stimuli simultaneously and asked participants to make a spatial decision according to either the visual or the auditory stimulus. We observed consistent cross-modal interference in the form of a spatial congruence effect. This effect was asymmetrical, with higher costs when responding to auditory than to visual stimuli. Furthermore, we found stimulus-modality-shift costs, indicating a persisting attentional bias towards the attended stimulus modality. We discuss our findings with respect to visual dominance, directed-attention accounts, and the modality-appropriateness hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschersleben, G., & Bertelson, P. (2003). Temporal ventriloquism: crossmodal interaction on the time dimension. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 50, 157–163. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(03)00131-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bertelson, P., & Radeau, M. (1981). Cross-modal bias and perceptual fusion with auditory-visual spatial discordance. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 578–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryck, R., & Mayr, U. (2008). Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 128–134. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choe, C. S., Welch, R. B., Gilford, R. M., & Juola, J. F. (1975). The “ventriloquist effect”: visual dominance or response bias? Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R., & Rist, F. (1992). The modality shift effect. Further explorations at the crossroads. In D. Friedman & G. E. Bruder (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Psychophysiology and experimental psychopathology: A tribute to Samuel Zutton (Vol. 658, pp. 163–181). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colavita, F. B. (1974). Human sensory dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 409–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeth, H. E., & Sager, L. C. (1977). On the locus if visual dominance. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T., Delano, M., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. NeuroImage, 35, 940–948. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1933). Adaption, after-effect, and contrast in the perception of curved lines. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 1–31. doi:10.1037/h0074626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, N. (1980). Non-informative effects of stimuli functioning as cues. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 413–425. doi:10.1080/14640748008401835.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hohnsbein, J., Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1991). Effects of crossmodal divided attention on late ERP components. I. Simple and choice reaction tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 78, 438–446. doi:10.1016/0013-4694(91)90061-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1997). Interactions between stimulus–stimulus congruence and stimulus–response compatibility. Psychological Research, 59, 248–260. doi:10.1007/BF00439302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Advances in psychology: Tutorials in motor behavior II (pp. 743–777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap. Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: a review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2008). The dual implication of dual affordance. Stimulus-task binding and attentional focus changing during task preparation. Experimental Psychology, 55, 252–260. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.55.4.251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert, W., & Soetens, E. (2003). Irrelevant auditory attention shifts prime corresponding responses. Psychological Research, 67, 253–260. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0126-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pick, H. L., Warren, D. H., & Hay, J. C. (1969). Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 203–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1982). Cumulative development and attentional theory. The American Psychologist, 37, 168–179. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157–171. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.83.2.157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (1998). Lateralized warning tones produce typical irrelevant-location effects on choice reactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 124–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2003). Display-control arrangement correspondence and logical recoding in the Hedge and Marsh reversal of the Simon effect. Acta Psychologica, 112, 259–278. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00125-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, P. T., & Hill, N. I. (1999). Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 375–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragot, R., Cave, C., & Fano, M. (1988). Reciprocal effects of visual and auditory stimuli in a spatial compatibility situation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 350–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 124, 207–231. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S. (2000). What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408, 788. doi:10.1038/35048669.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Effects of an irrelevant auditory stimulus on visual choice-reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 272–274. doi:10.1037/h0029961.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnett, S., Spence, C., & Soto-Faraco, S. (2007). Visual dominance and attention: the Colavita effect revisited. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 673–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1997). On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 389–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D’Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus–response modality congruence on dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70, 403–561. doi:10.1007/s00426-005-0013-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, S., & Zubin, J. (1965). Effect of sequence on reaction time in schizophrenia. In A. T. Welford & J. E. Birren (Eds.), Behavior, aging, and the nervous system (pp. 562–579). Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., & Umiltá, C. (2002). Cross-modal re-mapping influences the Simon effect. Memory & Cognition, 30, 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & Van der Helden, J. (2006). Failure of the extended contingent attentional capture account in multimodal settings. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 255–267. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0060-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. J. (1971). S–R compatibility and the idea of a response-code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354–360. doi:10.1037/h0030892.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, L. M. (1994). Supramodal and modality-specific mechanisms for stimulus-driven shifts of auditory and visual attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 242–259. doi:10.1037/1196-1961.48.2.242.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, L. M., McDonald, J. J., & Lin, D. (2000). On asymmetries in cross-modal spatial attention orienting. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1258–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638–667. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1986). Intersensory interactions. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 1. Sensory processes and perception (pp. 25.1–25.36). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2008). The impact of stimulus–specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks. Psychological Research, 72, 425–432. doi:10.1007/s00426-007-0117-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wühr, P., Biebl, R., Umiltà, C., & Müsseler, J. (2009). Perceptual and attentional factors in encoding irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 73, 350–363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 29, 455–469. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.455.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Sarah Lukas, Andrea M. Philipp, and Iring Koch, Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Grant KO 2045/04-03 to Iring Koch and Andrea M. Philipp in the context of DFG SPP 1107 (Executive Functions). The authors would like to thank Bernhard Hommel, Peter Wühr, and Thomas Kleinsorge for their comments on an earlier version of the paper. We are also grateful to Marion Marksteiner, Dunja Kosanke, and Sandra Beecks for conducting the experiments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstrasse 17-19, 52066, Aachen, Germany

    Sarah Lukas, Andrea M. Philipp & Iring Koch

Authors
  1. Sarah Lukas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea M. Philipp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Iring Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Lukas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lukas, S., Philipp, A.M. & Koch, I. Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research 74, 255–267 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0246-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0246-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation