↓ Skip to main content

A phonologically congruent sound boosts a visual target into perceptual awareness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
A phonologically congruent sound boosts a visual target into perceptual awareness
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2014.00070
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Adam, Uta Noppeney

Abstract

Capacity limitations of attentional resources allow only a fraction of sensory inputs to enter our awareness. Most prominently, in the attentional blink the observer often fails to detect the second of two rapidly successive targets that are presented in a sequence of distractor items. To investigate how auditory inputs enable a visual target to escape the attentional blink, this study presented the visual letter targets T1 and T2 together with phonologically congruent or incongruent spoken letter names. First, a congruent relative to an incongruent sound at T2 rendered visual T2 more visible. Second, this T2 congruency effect was amplified when the sound was congruent at T1 as indicated by a T1 congruency × T2 congruency interaction. Critically, these effects were observed both when the sounds were presented in synchrony with and prior to the visual target letters suggesting that the sounds may increase visual target identification via multiple mechanisms such as audiovisual priming or decisional interactions. Our results demonstrate that a sound around the time of T2 increases subjects' awareness of the visual target as a function of T1 and T2 congruency. Consistent with Bayesian causal inference, the brain may thus combine (1) prior congruency expectations based on T1 congruency and (2) phonological congruency cues provided by the audiovisual inputs at T2 to infer whether auditory and visual signals emanate from a common source and should hence be integrated for perceptual decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 33%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 31%
Neuroscience 12 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Linguistics 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 12 23%
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 15 October 2014.
All research outputs
#17,726,563
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#644
of 853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,784
of 238,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 238,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.