↓ Skip to main content

Cross-Modal Stimulus Conflict: The Behavioral Effects of Stimulus Input Timing in a Visual-Auditory Stroop Task

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cross-Modal Stimulus Conflict: The Behavioral Effects of Stimulus Input Timing in a Visual-Auditory Stroop Task
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0062802
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah E. Donohue, Lawrence G. Appelbaum, Christina J. Park, Kenneth C. Roberts, Marty G. Woldorff

Abstract

Cross-modal processing depends strongly on the compatibility between different sensory inputs, the relative timing of their arrival to brain processing components, and on how attention is allocated. In this behavioral study, we employed a cross-modal audio-visual Stroop task in which we manipulated the within-trial stimulus-onset-asynchronies (SOAs) of the stimulus-component inputs, the grouping of the SOAs (blocked vs. random), the attended modality (auditory or visual), and the congruency of the Stroop color-word stimuli (congruent, incongruent, neutral) to assess how these factors interact within a multisensory context. One main result was that visual distractors produced larger incongruency effects on auditory targets than vice versa. Moreover, as revealed by both overall shorter response times (RTs) and relative shifts in the psychometric incongruency-effect functions, visual-information processing was faster and produced stronger and longer-lasting incongruency effects than did auditory. When attending to either modality, stimulus incongruency from the other modality interacted with SOA, yielding larger effects when the irrelevant distractor occurred prior to the attended target, but no interaction with SOA grouping. Finally, relative to neutral-stimuli, and across the wide range of the SOAs employed, congruency led to substantially more behavioral facilitation than did incongruency to interference, in contrast to findings that within-modality stimulus-compatibility effects tend to be more evenly split between facilitation and interference. In sum, the present findings reveal several key characteristics of how we process the stimulus compatibility of cross-modal sensory inputs, reflecting stimulus processing patterns that are critical for successfully navigating our complex multisensory world.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
India 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Iceland 1 1%
Unknown 95 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 26%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 43%
Neuroscience 11 11%
Engineering 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 18 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,191,579
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,043
of 193,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,636
of 192,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,168
of 4,934 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,934 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.