Fundamental differences in change detection between vision and audition
- 314 Downloads
We compared auditory change detection to visual change detection using closely matched stimuli and tasks in the two modalities. On each trial, participants were presented with a test stimulus consisting of ten elements: pure tones with various frequencies for audition, or dots with various spatial positions for vision. The test stimulus was preceded or followed by a probe stimulus consisting of a single element, and two change-detection tasks were performed. In the “present/absent” task, the probe either matched one randomly selected element of the test stimulus or none of them; participants reported present or absent. In the “direction-judgment” task, the probe was always slightly shifted relative to one randomly selected element of the test stimulus; participants reported the direction of the shift. Whereas visual performance was systematically better in the present/absent task than in the direction-judgment task, the opposite was true for auditory performance. Moreover, whereas visual performance was strongly dependent on selective attention and on the time interval separating the probe from the test stimulus, this was not the case for auditory performance. Our results show that small auditory changes can be detected automatically across relatively long temporal gaps, using an implicit memory system that seems to have no similar counterpart in the visual domain.
KeywordsChange detection Temporal binding Sensory memory Attention
Authors LD and DP contributed equally to this work. We thank Prof. Patrick Cavanagh and Dr. Andrei Gorea for helpful discussions about the visual experiments. We also thank Dr. Etienne Guillaud for technical assistance and Dr. Trevor Agus for suggestions on the manuscript.
- Best V, Ozmeral EJ, Kopco N, Shinn-Cunningham BG (2008) Object continuity enhances selective auditory attention. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105:13173–13177Google Scholar
- Bregman AS (1990) Auditory scene analysis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Cowan N (1995) Attention and memory. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Demany L, Semal C (2008) The role of memory in auditory perception. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Auditory perception of sound sources. Springer, New York, pp 77–113Google Scholar
- Downar J, Crawley AP, Mikulis DJ, Davis KD (2000) A multimodal cortical network for the detection of changes in the sensory environment. Nat Neurosci 3:77–283Google Scholar
- Hafter ER, Sarampalis A, Loui P (2008) Auditory attention and filters. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Auditory perception of sound sources. Springer, New York, pp 115–142Google Scholar
- Kidd G, Mason CR, Richards VM, Gallun FJ, Durlach NI (2008) Informational masking. In: Yost WA, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Auditory perception of sound sources. Springer, New York, pp 143–189Google Scholar
- Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (1991) Detection theory: a user’s guide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Moore BCJ (2004) An introduction to the psychology of hearing. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Phillips WA (1974) On the distinction between sensory storage and short-term visual memory. Percept Psychophys 16:283–290Google Scholar