Global auditory-spatial orienting cues help the detection of weak visual stimuli, but it is not clear whether crossmodal attention cues also enhance the resolution of visuospatial discrimination. Here, we hypothesized that if anywhere, crossmodal modulations of visual localization should emerge in the periphery where the receptive fields are large. Subjects were presented with trials where a Visual Target, defined by a cluster of low-luminance dots, was shown for 220 ms at 25°–35° eccentricity in either the left or right hemifield. The Visual Target was either Uncued or it was presented 250 ms after a crossmodal Auditory Cue that was simulated either from the same or the opposite hemifield than the Visual Target location. After a whole-screen visual mask displayed for 800 ms, a pair of vertical Reference Bars was presented ipsilateral to the Visual Target. In a two-alternative forced choice task, subjects were asked to determine which of these two bars was closer to the center of the Visual Target. When the Auditory Cue and Visual Target were hemispatially incongruent, the speed and accuracy of visual localization performance was significantly impaired. However, hemispatially congruent Auditory Cues did not improve the localization of Visual Targets when compared to the Uncued condition. Further analyses suggested that the crossmodal Auditory Cues decreased the sensitivity (d′) of the Visual Target localization without affecting post-perceptual decision biases. Our results suggest that in the visual periphery, the detrimental effect of hemispatially incongruent Auditory Cues is far greater than the benefit produced by hemispatially congruent cues. Our working hypothesis for future studies is that auditory-spatial attention cues suppress irrelevant visual locations in a global fashion, without modulating the local visual precision at relevant sites.
Attention Auditory Crossmodal Spatial Visual
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant 1545668 (LMV), and by the National Institutes of Health grants R01DC016765 (JA) and R01DC016915 (JA).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Ahveninen J, Huang S, Belliveau JW, Chang WT, Hämäläinen M (2013) Dynamic oscillatory processes governing cued orienting and allocation of auditory attention. J Cogn Neurosci 25:1926–1943CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Ahveninen J, Kopco N, Jääskeläinen IP (2014) Psychophysics and neuronal bases of sound localization in humans. Hear Res 307:86–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Banerjee S, Snyder AC, Molholm S, Foxe JJ (2011) Oscillatory alpha-band mechanisms and the deployment of spatial attention to anticipated auditory and visual target locations: supramodal or sensory-specific control mechanisms? J Neurosci 31:9923–9932CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Bates DM, Maechler M (2009) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. In: R package version 0.999999-0Google Scholar
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (1991) Detection theory: a user’s guide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Makowski D (2018) The psycho package: an efficient and publishing-oriented workflow for psychological science. J Open Source Softw 3:470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald JJ, Ward LM (2000) Involuntary listening aids seeing: evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychol Sci 11:167–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
McDonald JJ, Teder-Salejarvi WA, Hillyard SA (2000) Involuntary orienting to sound improves visual perception. Nature 407:906–908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
McDonald JJ, Green JJ, Stormer VS, Hillyard SA (2012) Cross-modal spatial cueing of attention influences visual perceptionGoogle Scholar
Mondor TA, Zatorre RJ (1995) Shifting and focusing auditory spatial attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:387–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ (1988) The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci 2:187–199Google Scholar
Perrott DR, Sadralodabai T, Saberi K, Strybel TZ (1991) Aurally aided visual search in the central visual field: effects of visual load and visual enhancement of the target. Hum Factors 33:389–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rauschecker JP, Tian B (2000) Mechanisms and streams for processing of “what” and “where” in auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:11800–11806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Schmitt M, Postma A, De Haan E (2000) Interactions between exogenous auditory and visual spatial attention. Q J Exp Psychol A 53:105–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Stein BE, Stanford TR (2008) Multisensory integration: current issues from the perspective of the single neuron. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:255–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Thorpe S, D’Zmura M, Srinivasan R (2012) Lateralization of frequency-specific networks for covert spatial attention to auditory stimuli. Brain Topogr 25:39–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Ward LM (1994) Supramodal and modality-specific mechanisms for stimulus-driven shifts of auditory and visual attention. Can J Exp Psychol 48:242–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Worden MS, Foxe JJ, Wang N, Simpson GV (2000) Anticipatory biasing of visuospatial attention indexed by retinotopically specific alpha-band electroencephalography increases over occipital cortex. J Neurosci 20:RC63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Yang YH, Yeh SL (2014) Unmasking the dichoptic mask by sound: spatial congruency matters. Exp Brain Res 232:1109–1116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Yeshurun Y, Carrasco M (1999) Spatial attention improves performance in spatial resolution tasks. Vis Res 39:293–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar