Effect of Target Semantic Consistency in Different Sequence Positions and Processing Modes on T2 Recognition: Integration and Suppression Based on Cross-Modal Processing.

Haoping Yang, Chunlin Yue, Cenyi Wang, Aijun Wang, Zonghao Zhang, Li Luo
Author Information
  1. Haoping Yang: School of Physical Education and Sports Science, Soochow University, Suzhou 215021, China. ORCID
  2. Chunlin Yue: School of Physical Education and Sports Science, Soochow University, Suzhou 215021, China.
  3. Cenyi Wang: School of Physical Education and Sports Science, Soochow University, Suzhou 215021, China. ORCID
  4. Aijun Wang: School of Education, Soochow University, Suzhou 215023, China. ORCID
  5. Zonghao Zhang: School of Physical Education and Sports Science, Soochow University, Suzhou 215021, China. ORCID
  6. Li Luo: School of Physical Education and Sports Science, Soochow University, Suzhou 215021, China. ORCID

Abstract

In the rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) paradigm, sound affects participants' recognition of targets. Although many studies have shown that sound improves cross-modal processing, researchers have not yet explored the effects of sound semantic information with respect to different locations and processing modalities after removing sound saliency. In this study, the RSVP paradigm was used to investigate the difference between attention under conditions of consistent and inconsistent semantics with the target (Experiment 1), as well as the difference between top-down (Experiment 2) and bottom-up processing (Experiment 3) for sounds with consistent semantics with target 2 (T2) at different sequence locations after removing sound saliency. The results showed that cross-modal processing significantly improved attentional blink (AB). The early or lagged appearance of sounds consistent with T2 did not affect participants' judgments in the exogenous attentional modality. However, visual target judgments were improved with endogenous attention. The sequential location of sounds consistent with T2 influenced the judgment of auditory and visual congruency. The results illustrate the effects of sound semantic information in different locations and processing modalities.

Keywords

References

  1. Eur J Neurosci. 2022 Aug;56(4):4411-4424 [PMID: 35796700]
  2. Percept Psychophys. 2008 Nov;70(8):1444-58 [PMID: 19064489]
  3. Front Integr Neurosci. 2012 Jul 04;6:38 [PMID: 22783174]
  4. Brain Lang. 2018 May - Jul;180-182:1-7 [PMID: 29653279]
  5. Neuropsychologia. 2007 Feb 1;45(3):514-22 [PMID: 16581094]
  6. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2018 Feb;80(2):439-452 [PMID: 29243207]
  7. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 May;134(2):207-21 [PMID: 15869346]
  8. Psychol Rev. 2017 Jan;124(1):21-59 [PMID: 27869455]
  9. Cognition. 2011 Oct;121(1):133-9 [PMID: 21741633]
  10. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2020 Dec;73(12):2290-2308 [PMID: 32640868]
  11. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Feb;4(2):42-50 [PMID: 10652521]
  12. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Jun;9(6):296-305 [PMID: 15925809]
  13. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Jul;17(7):1098-114 [PMID: 16102239]
  14. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2013 Sep 20;9(3):143-5 [PMID: 24155862]
  15. Exp Brain Res. 2012 Aug;220(3-4):319-33 [PMID: 22706551]
  16. J Neurosci. 2012 Aug 29;32(35):12294-302 [PMID: 22933811]
  17. Perception. 2012;41(3):339-53 [PMID: 22808586]
  18. Neuroimage. 2021 Mar;228:117670 [PMID: 33359352]
  19. J Vis. 2010 Jan 12;10(1):6.1-12 [PMID: 20143899]
  20. Neuroimage. 2015 Aug 15;117:429-38 [PMID: 26021217]
  21. Pro Fono. 2009 Jan-Mar;21(1):13-8 [PMID: 19360253]
  22. Hum Brain Mapp. 2022 Jun 1;43(8):2478-2494 [PMID: 35122347]
  23. Neuropsychologia. 2020 Jul;144:107498 [PMID: 32442445]
  24. Brain Res. 2008 Nov 25;1242:191-9 [PMID: 18304520]
  25. Psychophysiology. 2006 Nov;43(6):541-9 [PMID: 17076810]
  26. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Feb;84(2):372-382 [PMID: 34962629]
  27. Perception. 2016 May;45(5):515-526 [PMID: 26811419]
  28. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Aug;74(6):1154-67 [PMID: 22648604]
  29. Neuroimage. 2021 Apr 15;230:117789 [PMID: 33497774]
  30. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Oct;34(5):1053-65 [PMID: 18823194]
  31. Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Oct;26(5):1683-1689 [PMID: 31342407]
  32. Mem Cognit. 2005 Jun;33(4):654-63 [PMID: 16248330]
  33. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 22;111(16):6104-8 [PMID: 24711409]
  34. Emotion. 2019 Feb;19(1):53-69 [PMID: 29504800]
  35. J Neurophysiol. 2018 Aug 1;120(2):812-829 [PMID: 29742026]
  36. Cognition. 2020 Mar;196:104119 [PMID: 31751823]
  37. Neural Comput. 2005 Sep;17(9):1875-902 [PMID: 15992485]
  38. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Jul;84(5):1625-1634 [PMID: 35641858]
  39. Neurobiol Aging. 2015 Nov;36(11):3029-3037 [PMID: 26254109]
  40. Psychol Res. 2022 Mar;86(2):485-496 [PMID: 33765178]
  41. Psychophysiology. 2021 Apr;58(4):e13761 [PMID: 33400294]
  42. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  43. Front Integr Neurosci. 2019 Sep 11;13:53 [PMID: 31572138]
  44. J Neurophysiol. 2011 Nov;106(5):2273-84 [PMID: 21753026]
  45. Cogn Process. 2013 Aug;14(3):273-81 [PMID: 23455945]
  46. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992 Aug;18(3):849-60 [PMID: 1500880]
  47. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Oct;28(5):1149-62 [PMID: 12421061]
  48. Cereb Cortex. 2021 Feb 5;31(3):1632-1646 [PMID: 33140100]
  49. PLoS One. 2009 May 27;4(5):e5664 [PMID: 19471644]
  50. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 13;9(8):e104131 [PMID: 25119997]
  51. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2013 Sep 20;9(3):130-42 [PMID: 24155861]
  52. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Feb;21(1):109-27 [PMID: 7707027]
  53. Mem Cognit. 1998 Sep;26(5):1014-32 [PMID: 9796233]
  54. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1996 Aug;22(4):1005-30 [PMID: 8756965]

Grants

  1. No. 20BTY107/National Social Science Foundation of China
  2. 2022/the Interdiscipline Research Team of Humanities and Social Sciences of Soochow University
  3. No. 202110285040Z/Undergraduate Training Program for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Soochow University
  4. No. 202210285059Z/Undergraduate Training Program for Innovation and Entrepreneurship Soochow University

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0soundprocessingattentionconsistentT2visualcross-modalsemanticdifferentlocationstargetExperimentsoundsattentionalRSVPparadigmparticipants'effectsinformationmodalitiesremovingsaliencydifferencesemantics2resultsimprovedblinkjudgmentsexogenousendogenouscongruencyProcessingrapidserialpresentationaffectsrecognitiontargetsAlthoughmanystudiesshownimprovesresearchersyetexploredrespectstudyusedinvestigateconditionsinconsistent1welltop-downbottom-up3sequenceshowedsignificantlyABearlylaggedappearanceaffectmodalityHoweversequentiallocationinfluencedjudgmentauditoryillustrateEffectTargetSemanticConsistencyDifferentSequencePositionsModesRecognition:IntegrationSuppressionBasedCross-Modalintegrationselective

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)