Advertisement

Peripheral visual localization is degraded by globally incongruent auditory-spatial attention cues

  • Jyrki AhveninenEmail author
  • Grace Ingalls
  • Funda Yildirim
  • Finnegan J. Calabro
  • Lucia M. Vaina
Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Attention Auditory Crossmodal Spatial Visual 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 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 25:1926–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahveninen J, Kopco N, Jääskeläinen IP (2014) Psychophysics and neuronal bases of sound localization in humans. Hear Res 307:86–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 31:9923–9932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates DM, Maechler M (2009) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. In: R package version 0.999999-0Google Scholar
  5. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolia RS, D’Angelo WR, McKinley RL (1999) Aurally aided visual search in three-dimensional space. Hum Factors 41:664–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Botvinick MM, Cohen JD, Carter CS (2004) Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends Cogn Sci 8:539–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colavita FB (1974) Human sensory dominance. Percept Psychophys 16:409–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colburn HS (1996) Computational models of binaural processing. In: Hawkins H, McMullen T (eds) Auditory computation. Springer, New York, pp 332–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowey A, Rolls ET (1974) Human cortical magnification factor and its relation to visual acuity. Exp Brain Res 21:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ege R, van Opstal AJ, Bremen P, van Wanrooij MM (2018) Testing the precedence effect in the median plane reveals backward spatial masking of sound. Sci Rep 8:8670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fiebelkorn IC, Foxe JJ, Butler JS, Molholm S (2011) Auditory facilitation of visual-target detection persists regardless of retinal eccentricity and despite wide audiovisual misalignments. Exp Brain Res 213:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foxe JJ, Simpson GV, Ahlfors SP (1998) Parieto-occipital approximately 10 Hz activity reflects anticipatory state of visual attention mechanisms. NeuroReport 9:3929–3933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hairston WD, Wallace MT, Vaughan JW, Stein BE, Norris JL, Schirillo JA (2003) Visual localization ability influences cross-modal bias. J Cogn Neurosci 15:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanada GM, Ahveninen J, Calabro F, Yengo-Kahn A, Vaina LM (2019) Cross-modal cue effects in motion processing. Multisens Res 32:45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howard IP, Templeton WB (1966) Human spatial orientation. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang S, Rossi S, Hämäläinen M, Ahveninen J (2014) Auditory conflict resolution correlates with medial-lateral frontal theta/alpha phase synchrony. PLoS One 9:e110989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavie N (2005) Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load. Trends Cogn Sci 9:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (1991) Detection theory: a user’s guide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Makowski D (2018) The psycho package: an efficient and publishing-oriented workflow for psychological science. J Open Source Softw 3:470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McDonald JJ, Ward LM (2000) Involuntary listening aids seeing: evidence from human electrophysiology. Psychol Sci 11:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonald JJ, Teder-Salejarvi WA, Hillyard SA (2000) Involuntary orienting to sound improves visual perception. Nature 407:906–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonald JJ, Green JJ, Stormer VS, Hillyard SA (2012) Cross-modal spatial cueing of attention influences visual perceptionGoogle Scholar
  24. Mondor TA, Zatorre RJ (1995) Shifting and focusing auditory spatial attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 21:387–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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 33:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rauschecker JP, Tian B (2000) Mechanisms and streams for processing of “what” and “where” in auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:11800–11806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmitt M, Postma A, De Haan E (2000) Interactions between exogenous auditory and visual spatial attention. Q J Exp Psychol A 53:105–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spence C, Driver J (1997) Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting. Percept Psychophys 59:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stein BE, Stanford TR (2008) Multisensory integration: current issues from the perspective of the single neuron. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thorpe S, D’Zmura M, Srinivasan R (2012) Lateralization of frequency-specific networks for covert spatial attention to auditory stimuli. Brain Topogr 25:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ward LM (1994) Supramodal and modality-specific mechanisms for stimulus-driven shifts of auditory and visual attention. Can J Exp Psychol 48:242–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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:RC63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang YH, Yeh SL (2014) Unmasking the dichoptic mask by sound: spatial congruency matters. Exp Brain Res 232:1109–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yeshurun Y, Carrasco M (1999) Spatial attention improves performance in spatial resolution tasks. Vis Res 39:293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yeshurun Y, Carrasco M (2000) The locus of attentional effects in texture segmentation. Nat Neurosci 3:622–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jyrki Ahveninen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Grace Ingalls
    • 2
  • Funda Yildirim
    • 2
  • Finnegan J. Calabro
    • 2
    • 4
  • Lucia M. Vaina
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Harvard Medical School, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalCharlestownUSA
  2. 2.Brain and Vision Research Laboratory, Department of Biomedical EngineeringBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical SchoolMassachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Psychiatry and BioengineeringUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations