Temporal sequence discrimination within and across senses: do we really hear what we see?
Temporal sequence discrimination within and across senses: do we really hear what we see?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00221-019-05654-4
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Ulrich, Rolf
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bratzke, Daniel;Ulrich, Rolf
此前的证据表明，人们在编码时间信息时会“听到”视觉刺激。这一建议是基于观察到听觉分心信息可以强烈地影响视觉时间序列的辨别绩效。本研究旨在通过调查两种模式内和跨两种模式的序列歧视来复制和推广这一发现。在两个实验系列中，参与者判断随后呈现的两个时间序列-标准序列和比较序列-是否相同。在实验系列A中，与标准序列同时呈现无关的分心物信息。在B系列中，注意力分散出现在标准序列和对照序列之间的保留区间。结果表明，无论目标序列是听觉的还是视觉的，听觉干扰都会损害操作能力，而视觉干扰只会损害视觉目标序列的辨别能力。此外，听觉分心至少和视觉分心一样有效，与标准模式无关。一般来说，听觉序列的辨别性能要比视觉序列好得多。总体而言，目前的结果与人们在听觉通道中编码视觉时间信息的想法是一致的。此外，本研究还表明，由于两种通道在时间敏感性上的基本差异，这种跨通道干扰效应应该从其潜在的时序机制上进行谨慎的解释。
Previous evidence suggests that people "hear" visual stimuli when encoding temporal information. This suggestion is based on the observation that auditory distractor information can strongly affect discrimination performance for visual temporal sequences. The present study aimed to replicate and extend this finding by investigating sequence discrimination within and across the two modalities. In two experimental series, participants judged whether two subsequently presented temporal sequences, a standard sequence followed by a comparison sequence, were identical or not. In Experimental Series A, irrelevant distractor information was presented simultaneously with the standard sequence. In Series B, the distraction appeared in the retention interval between the standard sequence and the comparison sequence. The results showed that auditory distraction impaired performance irrespective of whether the target sequences were auditory or visual, whereas visual distraction only impaired the discrimination of visual target sequences. Furthermore, auditory distraction was always at least as effective as visual distraction, irrespective of standard modality. Generally, discrimination performance was much better for auditory than for visual sequences. Overall, the present results are consistent with the idea that people code visual temporal information in the auditory modality. Moreover, the present study also suggests that such cross-modal interference effects should be interpreted cautiously with respect to their underlying timing mechanism because of the basic differences in temporal sensitivity between the two modalities.