Abstract
The Colavita effect refers to the phenomenon that people do not respond to an auditory stimulus in most cases when a visual stimulus is simultaneously presented. Although the Colavita effect remains robust irrespective of many factors, little is known concerning how the visual dominance varies as a function of the depth of sensory inputs. In the present study, visual and auditory stimuli were presented either in the same (in Experiment 1) or in the different spatial distances (in Experiment 2). Participants were asked to make speeded responses to unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, or bimodal audiovisual stimuli. In the incorrectly responded bimodal trials, the error trials in which responses were made only to the visual component were compared with the trials in which responses were made only to the auditory component. In the correctly responded bimodal trials, the trials in which participants responded first to the visual component were compared with the trials in which participants responded first to the auditory component. Analysis on the incorrect and correct bimodal trials both indicated significant visual dominance effects. More importantly, the size of the visual dominance effect was significantly enhanced as long as the visual stimuli were presented in far space irrespective of whether the auditory stimuli were presented in near or far space. Our results thus, for the first time, revealed that the visual dominance effect changed along the depth dimension of space. Taken together, the present results shed lights on how the allocation of attentional resources along the depth dimension of space biases the process of multisensory competition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bertelson P, De Gelder B (2004) The psychology of multimodal perception. In: Spence C, Driver J (eds) Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 141–177
Boring EG (1940) Size constancy and Emmert’s law. Am J Psychol 53:293–295. doi:10.2307/1417427
Colavita FB (1974) Human sensory dominance. Percept Psychophys 16:409–412. doi:10.3758/bf03203962
Colavita FB (1982) Visual dominance and attention in space. Bull Psychon Soc 19:261–262. doi:10.3758/bf03330251
Colavita FB, Weisberg D (1979) A further investigation of visual dominance. Percept Psychophys 25:345–347. doi:10.3758/bf03198814
Colavita FB, Tomko R, Weisberg D (1976) Visual prepotency and eye orientation. Bull Psychon Soc 8:25–26. doi:10.3758/bf03337062
Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18:193–222. doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205
Desimone R, Wessinger M, Thomas L, Schneider W (1990) Attentional control of visual perception: cortical and subcortical mechanisms. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 55:963–971. doi:10.1101/SQB.1990.055.01.090
Downing C, Pinker S (1985) The spatial structure of visual attention. In: Posner MI, Marin OS (eds) Attention and performance XI. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 171–187
Duncan J (1996) Cooperating brain systems in selective perception and action. In: Inui T, McClelland JL (eds) Attention and performance XVI: information integration in perception and communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 549–578
Egeth HE, Sager LC (1977) On the locus of visual dominance. Percept Psychophys 22:77–86. doi:10.3758/bf03206083
Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433. doi:10.1038/415429a
Gawryszewski LDG, Riggio L, Rizzolatti G, Umiltá C (1987) Movements of attention in the three dimensions and the meaning of neutral cues. Neuropsychologia 25:19–29. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(87)90040-6
Graziano MSA, Cooke DF (2006) Parieto-frontal interactions, personal space, and defensive behavior. Neuropsychologia 44:845–859. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.09.009
Heron J, Whitaker D, McGraw PV (2004) Sensory uncertainty governs the extent of audio-visual interaction. Vision Res 44:2875–2884. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.001
Klemen J, Büchel C, Rose M (2009) Perceptual load interacts with stimulus processing across sensory modalities. Eur J Neurosci 29:2426–2434. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06774.x
Koppen C, Spence C (2007a) Spatial coincidence modulates the Colavita visual dominance effect. Neurosci Lett 417:107–111. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2006.10.069
Koppen C, Spence C (2007b) Audiovisual asynchrony modulates the Colavita visual dominance effect. Brain Res 1186:224–232. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.09.076
Koppen C, Spence C (2007c) Seeing the light: exploring the Colavita visual dominance effect. Exp Brain Res 180:737–754. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-0894-3
Koppen C, Spence C (2007d) Assessing the role of stimulus probability on the Colavita visual dominance effect. Neurosci Lett 418:266–271. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2007.03.032
Koppen C, Alsius A, Spence C (2008) Semantic congruency and the Colavita visual dominance effect. Exp Brain Res 184:533–546. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-1120-z
Koppen C, Levitan C, Spence C (2009) A signal detection study of the Colavita effect. Exp Brain Res 196:353–360. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1853-y
Maringelli F, McCarthy J, Steed A, Slater M, Umilta C (2001) Shifting visuo-spatial attention in a virtual three-dimensional space. Cogn Brain Res 10:317–322. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00039-2
Nava E, Pavani F (2013) Changes in sensory dominance during childhood: Converging evidence from the Colavita effect and the sound-induced flash illusion. Child Dev 84:604–616. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01856.x
Ngo MK, Cadieux ML, Sinnett S, Soto-Faraco S, Spence C (2011) Reversing the Colavita visual dominance effect. Exp Brain Res 214:607–618. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2859-9
Oray S, Lu ZL, Dawson ME (2002) Modification of sudden onset auditory ERP by involuntary attention to visual stimuli. Int J Psychophysiol 43:213–224. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(01)00174-X
Plewan T, Weidner R, Fink GR (2012) The influence of stimulus duration on visual illusions and simple reaction time. Exp Brain Res 223:367–375. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3265-7
Previc FH (1998) The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychol Bull 124:123–164. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.123
Recanzone GH, Wurtz RH (2000) Effects of attention on MT and MST neuronal activity during pursuit initiation. J Neurophysiol 83:777–790
Scalf PE, Torralbo A, Tapia E, Beck DM (2013) Competition explains limited attention and perceptual resources: implications for perceptual load and dilution theories. Front Psychol 4:243. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00243
Schmid C, Buechel C, Rose M (2011) The neural basis of visual dominance in the context of audio-visual object processing. Neuroimage 55:304–311. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.051
Sinnett S, Spence C, Soto-Faraco S (2007) Visual dominance and attention: the Colavita effect revisited. Percept Psychophys 69:673–686. doi:10.3758/BF03193770
Sinnett S, Soto-Faraco S, Spence C (2008) The cooccurrence of multisensory competition and facilitation. Acta Psychol 128:153–161. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.12.002
Spence C (2009) Explaining the Colavita visual dominance effect. Prog Brain Res 176:245–258. doi:10.1016/s0079-6123(09)17615-x
Spence C (2010) Prior entry: Attention and temporal perception. In: Nobre AC, Coull JT (eds) Attention and time. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 89–104
Spence C, Parise C, Chen YC (2011) The Colavita visual dominance effect. In: Murray MM, Wallace MT (eds) The neural bases of multisensory processes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 529–556
Sperandio I, Savazzi S, Gregory RL, Marzi CA (2009) Visual reaction time and size constancy. Perception 38:1601–1609. doi:10.1068/p6421
Sperandio I, Savazzi S, Marzi CA (2010) Is simple reaction time affected by visual illusions? Exp Brain Res 201:345–350. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-2023-y
Van Damme S, Crombez G, Spence C (2009) Is visual dominance modulated by the threat value of visual and auditory stimuli? Exp Brain Res 193:197–204. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1608-1
Witten IB, Knudsen EI (2005) Why seeing is believing: merging auditory and visual worlds. Neuron 48:489–496. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.020
Yuval-Greeberg S, Deouell LY (2009) The dog’s meow: asymmetrical interaction in cross-modal object recognition. Exp Brain Res 193:603–614. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1664-6
Acknowledgments
The work was funded by Grants from Natural Science Foundation of China (31371127, 31470978, 31100739) and Grants from the Ministry of Education of China (10YJCXLX055). Q.C. is supported by the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in the University of China (NCET-12-0645) and by the Guangdong Province Universities and Colleges Pearl River Scholar Funded Scheme (2014).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Zhenzhu Yue and Yizhou Jiang have contributed equally to the present study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yue, Z., Jiang, Y., Li, Y. et al. Enhanced visual dominance in far space. Exp Brain Res 233, 2833–2843 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4353-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4353-2