Abstract
Research has shown that people fail to report the presence of the auditory component of suprathreshold audiovisual targets significantly more often than they fail to detect the visual component in speeded response tasks. Here, we investigated whether this phenomenon, known as the “Colavita effect”, also affects people’s perception of visuotactile stimuli as well. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants made speeded detection/discrimination responses to unimodal visual, unimodal tactile, and bimodal (visual and tactile) stimuli. A significant Colavita visual dominance effect was observed (i.e., participants failed to respond to touch far more often than they failed to respond to vision on the bimodal trials). This dominance of vision over touch was significantly larger when the stimuli were presented from the same position than when they were presented from different positions (Experiment 3), and still occurred even when the subjective intensities of the visual and tactile stimuli had been matched (Experiment 4), thus ruling out a simple intensity-based account of the results. These results suggest that the Colavita visual dominance effect (over touch) may result from a competition between the neural representations of the two stimuli for access to consciousness and/or the recruitment of attentional resources.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A more detailed comparison of the two studies is made difficult by the fact that no specific attempt was made to match the intensity of the stimuli, either within or between these studies. It should, however, be noted that Colavita and Weisberg (1979) explicitly looked for any effect of changes in the intensity of the auditory stimulus on the magnitude of the visual dominance over audition. They found absolutely no effect of intensity changes on the magnitude of the Colavita visual dominance effect, even when the subjective intensity of the sound was doubled from one experiment to the next.
While both stimuli were presented at a supra-threshold level, no attempt was made in this study to match the intensities of the visual and vibrotactile stimuli (cf. Koppen and Spence 2007a, b, c; Sinnett et al. 2007; Spence et al. 2001b). Thus, it is possible that the visual and tactile stimuli may have been presented at different subjective intensities.
It should, however, be noted that the relatively lower alerting capability of visual stimuli as compared as tactile stimuli, although asserted by various researchers over the years (e.g., Posner et al. 1976; Von Haller Gilmer 1960), has never, as far as we are aware, been put to direct empirical test.
Note that the results reported here might also be consistent with the MLE framework if one assumes that visual stimuli simply provide more reliable (i.e., accurate) information about the presence of a stimulus in the environment than do tactile stimuli. In this regard, it is perhaps worth noting that the sense of touch actually performs a dual function, both informing us about events in the environment as well as about the status of our body (see Spence et al. 2001a).
It should, however, be noted that for the case of crossmodal extinction, it is the relative position of the two stimuli that determines stimulus is extinguished (i.e., the more contralesional stimulus) while with the Colavita effect, the target modalities of the stimuli determine which stimulus tends to go unnoticed (i.e., the tactile stimulus in the experiments reported here).
References
Banich MT (1998) The missing link: the role of interhemispheric interaction in attentional processing. Brain Cognit 36:128–157
Battaglia PW, Jacobs RA, Aslin RN (2003) Bayesian integration of visual and auditory signals for spatial localization. J Opt Soc Am A 20:1391–1397
Bedford FL (2001) Towards a general law of numerical/object identity. Curr Psychol Cognit 20:113–175
Behrmann M, Moscovitch M, Mozer MC (1991) Directing attention to words and nonwords in normal subjects and in a computational model: implications for neglect dyslexia. Cognit Neuropsychol 8:213–248
Bender MB (1952) Disorders of perception. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield
Bertelson P (1961) Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task. Q J Exp Psychol 13:90–102
Bertelson P, Aschersleben G (1998) Automatic visual bias of perceived auditory location. Psychon Bull Rev 5:482–489
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 141–178
Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391:756
Brewster D (1832) Natural magic. John Murray, London
Calvert GA, Spence C, Stein BE (eds) (2004) The handbook of multisensory processes. MIT Press, Cambridge
Cate A, Behrmann M (2002) Spatial and temporal influences on extinction. Neuropsychologia 40:2206–2225
Colavita FB (1974) Human sensory dominance. Percept Psychophys 16:409–412
Colavita FB, Tomko R, Weisberg D (1976) Visual prepotency and eye orientation. Bull Psychon Soc 8:25–26
Colavita FB, Weisberg D (1979) A further investigation of visual dominance. Percept Psychophys 25:345–347
Congedo M, Lécuyer A, Gentaz E (2006) The influence of spatial delocation on perceptual integration of vision and touch. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 15:353–357
Cornsweet TN (1962) The staircase-method in psychophysics. Am J Psychol 75:485–491
Costantini M, Bueti D, Pazzaglia M, Aglioti SM (2007) Temporal dynamics of visuo-tactile extinction between and within-hemispaces. Neuropsychology 21:242–250
Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18:193–222
di Pellegrino G, Làdavas E, Farné A (1997) Seeing where your hands are. Nature 388:730
Egeth HE, Sager LC (1977) On the locus of visual dominance. Percept Psychophys 22:77–86
Ehrsson HH, Spence C, Passingham RE (2004) That’s my hand! Activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb. Science 305:875–877
Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433
Ernst MO, Bülthoff HH (2004) Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends Cognit Sci 8:162–169
Fagot C, Pashler H (1992) Making two responses to a single object: implications for the central attentional bottleneck. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:1058–1079
Gallace A, Spence C (2005) Visual capture of apparent limb position influences tactile temporal order judgments. Neurosci Lett 379:63–68
Gallace A, Spence C (2007) The cognitive and neural correlates of “tactile consciousness”: a multisensory perspective. Conscious Cognit. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.005
Gallace A, Auvray M, Tan HZ, Spence C (2006) When visual transients impair tactile change detection: a novel case of crossmodal change blindness? Neurosci Lett 398:280–285
Gallace A, Tan HZ, Spence C (2007) The body surface as a communication system: the state of the art after 50 years. Presence Teleoper Visual Environ 16:655–676
Gephstein S, Burge J, Ernst MO, Banks MS (2005) The combination of vision and touch depends on spatial proximity. J Vis 5:1013–1023
Gibson JJ (1943) Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of curved lines. J Exp Psychol 16:1–31
Gregory RL (1967) Origin of eyes and brains. Nature 213:369–372
Guest S, Spence C (2003) Tactile dominance in the speeded discrimination of textures. Exp Brain Res 150:201–207
Hari R, Jousmäki V (1996) Preference of personal to extrapersonal space in a visuomotor task. J Cognit Neurosci 8:305–307
Hay JC, Pick HL Jr, Ikeda K (1965) Visual capture produced by prism spectacles. Psychonom Sci 2:215–216
Heymans G (1899) Untersuchungen über psychische Hemmung [Investigations of psychological inhibition]. Z Psychol Physiol Sinnesorgane 21:321–359
Ho C, Spence C (2005) Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing a driver’s visual attention. J Exp Psychol Appl 11:157–174
Ho C, Reed N, Spence C (2007) Multisensory in-car warning signals for collision avoidance. Hum Factors 49:1107–1114
Jacobson E (1911) Experiments on the inhibition of sensations. Psychol Rev 18:24–53
Kitagawa N, Ichihara S (2002) Hearing visual motion in depth. Nature 416:172–174
Klein RM (1977) Attention and visual dominance: a chronometric analysis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Performance 3:365–378
Koppen C, Spence C (2007a) Seeing the light: exploring the Colavita visual dominance effect. Exp Brain Res 180:737–754
Koppen C, Spence C (2007b) Spatial coincidence modulates the Colavita visual dominance effect. Neurosci Lett 417:107–111
Koppen C, Spence C (2007c) Assessing the role of stimulus probability on the Colavita visual dominance effect. Neurosci Lett 418:266–271
Koppen C, Spence C (2007d) Audiovisual asynchrony modulates the Colavita visual dominance effect. Brain Res 1186:224–232
Koppen C, Spence C (2008) A signal detection study of the Colavita visual dominance effect. Acta Psychologica (submitted)
Lederman SJ, Thorne G, Jones B (1986) Perception of texture by vision and touch: multidimensionality and intersensory integration. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Performance 12:169–180
Maravita A, Spence C, Driver J (2003) Multisensory integration and the body schema: close to hand and within reach. Curr Biol 13:R531–R539
Mattingley JB, Driver J, Beschin N, Robertson IH (1997) Attentional competition between modalities: extinction between touch and vision after right hemisphere damage. Neuropsychologia 35:867–880
Meredith MA (2004) Corticocortical connectivity of cross-modal circuits. In: Calvert GA, Spence C, Stein BE (eds) The handbook of multisensory processes. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 343–356
Nico D (1999) Effectiveness of sensory stimulation on tactile extinction. Exp Brain Res 127:75–82
Oviatt S (1999) Ten myths of multimodal interaction. Commun ACM 42:74–81
Partan S, Marler P (1999) Communication goes multimodal. Science 283:1272–1273
Pashler H (1994) Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychol Bull 116:220–244
Pashler H, Baylis G (1991) Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 17:33–48
Pavani F, Spence C, Driver J (2000) Visual capture of touch: out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychol Sci 11:353–359
Pick HL Jr, Warren DH, Hay JC (1969) Sensory conflict in judgements of spatial direction. Percept Psychophys 6:203–205
Posner MI (1978) Chronometric explorations of mind. Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Posner MI, Nissen MJ, Klein RM (1976) Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychol Rev 83:157–171
Quinlan P (2000) The ‘late’ locus of visual dominance. Abstr Psychon Soc 5:64
Randich A, Klein RM, LoLordo VM (1978) Visual dominance in the pigeon. J Exp Anal Behav 30:129–137
Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:594–596
Rock I, Harris CS (1967) Vision and touch. Sci Am 216(5):96–104
Santangelo V, Spence C (2007) Assessing the automaticity of reflexive tactile attentional orienting. Perception 36:1497–1505
Sarri M, Blankenburg F, Driver J (2006) Neural correlates of crossmodal visual-tactile extinction and of tactile awareness revealed by fMRI in a right-hemisphere stroke patient. Neuropsychologia 44:2398–2410
Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccolotto A (2002a) E-Prime user’s guide. Psychology Software Tools Inc, Pittsburgh
Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccolotto A (2002b) E-Prime reference guide. Psychology Software Tools Inc, Pittsburgh
Schumacher EH, Seymour TL, Glass JM, Fencsik DE, Lauber EJ, Kieras DE, Meyer DE (2001) Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychol Sci 12:101–108
Shams L, Kamitani Y, Shimojo S (2000) What you see is what you hear: sound induced visual flashing. Nature 408:788
Shapiro KL, Johnson TL (1987) Effects of arousal on attention to central and peripheral visual stimuli. Acta Psychol 66:157–172
Sinnett S, Spence C, Soto-Faraco S (2007) Visual dominance and attention: the Colavita effect revisited. Percept Psychophys 69:673–686
Spence C (2007) Audiovisual multisensory integration. Acoust Sci Technol 28:61–70
Spence C (2008) Making sense of touch: a multisensory approach to the perception of objects. In: Pye E (ed) Magic touch. UCL Press, London (in press)
Spence C, Driver J (eds) (2004) Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Spence C, Nicholls MER, Driver J (2001a) The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Percept Psychophys 63:330–336
Spence C, Shore DI, Klein RM (2001b) Multisensory prior entry. J Exp Psychol Gen 130:799–832
Stein BE, Stanford TR, Wallace MT, Vaughan WJ, Jiang W (2004) Crossmodal spatial interactions in subcortical and cortical circuits. In: Spence C, Driver J (eds) Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 25–50
Stein BE, Meredith MA (1993) The merging of the senses. MIT Press, Cambridge
Stevenson RA, Geoghegan ML, James TW (2007) Superadditive BOLD activation in superior temporal sulcus with threshold non-speech objects. Exp Brain Res 179:85–95
Stratton GM (1899) The spatial harmony of touch and sight. Mind 8:492–550
Turatto M, Galfano G, Bridgeman B, Umiltà C (2004) Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems. Exp Brain Res 155:301–310
Uetake K, Kudo Y (1994) Visual dominance over hearing in feed acquisition procedure of cattle. Appl Anim Behav Sci 42:1–9
Vallar G, Rusconi ML, Bignamini L, Geminiani G, Perani D (1994) Anatomical correlates of visual and tactile extinction in humans: a clinical CT scan study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 57:464–470
Van Erp JBF, Van Veen HAHC (2004) Vibrotactile in-vehicle navigation system. Transport Res Part F 7:247–256
Vatakis A, Spence C(2007) Crossmodal binding: evaluating the “unity assumption” using audiovisual speech stimuli. Percept Psychophys 69:744–756
Von Haller Gilmer B (1960) Possibilities of cutaneous electro-pulse communication. In: Hawkes GR (ed) Symposium on cutaneous sensitivity. U.S. Army Medical Research Laboratory, Fort Knox, pp 76–84
Ward R, Goodrich S, Driver J (1994) Grouping reduces visual extinction. Vis Cognit 1:101–129
Warren DH, Rossano MJ (1991) Intermodality relations: vision and touch. In: Heller MA, Schiff W (eds) The psychology of touch. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 119–137
Welch RB (1999) Meaning, attention, and the “unity assumption” in the intersensory bias of spatial and temporal perceptions. In: Ashersleben G, Bachmann T, Müsseler J (eds) Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events. Elsevier Science, B.V, Amsterdam, pp 371–387
Welch RB, Warren DH (1980) Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychol Bull 3:638–667
Welch RB, Warren DH (1986) Intersensory interactions. In: Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP (eds) Handbook of perception and performance: vol 1 sensory processes and perception. Wiley, New York, pp 25-1–25-36
World Medical Association (2000) Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Med Assoc 284:3043–3045
Zampini M, Shore DI, Spence C (2003) Multisensory temporal order judgements: the role of hemispheric redundancy. Int J Psychophysiol 50:165–180
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hartcher-O’Brien, J., Gallace, A., Krings, B. et al. When vision ‘extinguishes’ touch in neurologically-normal people: extending the Colavita visual dominance effect. Exp Brain Res 186, 643–658 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1272-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1272-5