» Articles » PMID: 17885751

Semantic Congruency and the Colavita Visual Dominance Effect

Overview
Journal Exp Brain Res
Specialty Neurology
Date 2007 Sep 22
PMID 17885751
Citations 23
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Participants presented with auditory, visual, or bimodal audiovisual stimuli in a speeded discrimination task, fail to respond to the auditory component of bimodal targets significantly more often than to the visual component, a phenomenon known as the Colavita visual dominance effect. Given that spatial and temporal factors have recently been shown to modulate the Colavita effect, the aim of the present study, was to investigate whether semantic congruency also modulates the effect. In the three experiments reported here, participants were presented with a version of the Colavita task in which the stimulus congruency between the auditory and visual components of the bimodal targets was manipulated. That is, the auditory and visual stimuli could refer to the same or different object (in Experiments 1 and 2) or audiovisual speech event (Experiment 3). Surprisingly, semantic/stimulus congruency had no effect on the magnitude of the Colavita effect in any of the experiments, although it exerted a significant effect on certain other aspects of participants' performance. This finding contrasts with the results of other recent studies showing that semantic/stimulus congruency can affect certain multisensory interactions.

Citing Articles

Long-term memory representations for audio-visual scenes.

Meyerhoff H, Jaggy O, Papenmeier F, Huff M Mem Cognit. 2022; 51(2):349-370.

PMID: 36100821 PMC: 9950240. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-022-01355-6.


Unity Assumption in Audiovisual Emotion Perception.

Sou K, Say A, Xu H Front Neurosci. 2022; 16:782318.

PMID: 35310087 PMC: 8931414. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.782318.


Endogenous Spatial Attention Modulates the Magnitude of the Colavita Visual Dominance Effect.

Wang A, Zhou H, Hu Y, Wu Q, Zhang T, Tang X Iperception. 2021; 12(4):20416695211027186.

PMID: 34290850 PMC: 8278468. DOI: 10.1177/20416695211027186.


Stimulus temporal uncertainty balances intersensory dominance.

Chen Y, Huang P Psychon Bull Rev. 2021; 28(6):1874-1884.

PMID: 34159527 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-021-01959-0.


Listen to Your Heart: Examining Modality Dominance Using Cross-Modal Oddball Tasks.

Robinson C, Chadwick K, Parker J, Sinnett S Front Psychol. 2020; 11:1643.

PMID: 32849007 PMC: 7399371. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01643.


References
1.
McRae K, de Sa V, Seidenberg M . On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1997; 126(2):99-130. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.126.2.99. View

2.
Vroomen J, Keetels M . The spatial constraint in intersensory pairing: no role in temporal ventriloquism. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006; 32(4):1063-71. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.4.1063. View

3.
Lavie N . Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005; 9(2):75-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004. View

4.
Heron J, Whitaker D, McGraw P . Sensory uncertainty governs the extent of audio-visual interaction. Vision Res. 2004; 44(25):2875-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.001. View

5.
Tyler L, Moss H . Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001; 5(6):244-252. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01651-x. View