N. Van der Stoep

Multisensory interactions in the depth plane in front and rear space: a review.

In this review, we evaluate the neurophysiological, neuropsychological, and psychophysical evidence relevant to the claim that multisensory information is processed differently depending on the region of space in which it happens to be presented. We discuss how the majority of studies of multisensory interactions in the depth plane that have been conducted to date have focused on visuotactile and audiotactile interactions in frontal peripersonal space and underline the importance of such multisensory interactions in defining peripersonal space. Based on our review of studies of multisensory interactions in depth, we question the extent to which peri- and extra-personal space (both frontal and rear) are characterized by differences in multisensory interactions (as evidenced by multisensory stimuli producing a different behavioral outcome as compared to unisensory stimulation). In addition to providing an overview of studies of multisensory interactions in different regions of space, our goal in writing this review has been to demonstrate that the various kinds of multisensory interactions that have been documented may follow very similar organizing principles. Multisensory interactions in depth that involve tactile stimuli are constrained by the fact that such stimuli typically need to contact the skin surface. Therefore, depth-related preferences of multisensory interactions involving touch can largely be explained in terms of their spatial alignment in depth and their alignment with the body. As yet, no such depth-related asymmetry has been observed in the case of audiovisual interactions. We therefore suggest that the spatial boundary of peripersonal space and the enhanced audiotactile and visuotactile interactions that occur in peripersonal space can be explained in terms of the particular spatial alignment of stimuli from different modalities with the body and that they likely reflect the result of prior multisensory experience.

Depth: the forgotten dimension in multisensory research

The last quarter of a century has seen a dramatic rise of interest in the spatial constraints on multisensory integration. However, until recently, the majority of this research has investigated integration in the space directly in front of the observer. The space around us, however, extends in three spatial dimensions in the front and to the rear beyond such a limited area. The question to be addressed in this review concerns whether multisensory integration operates according to the same rules throughout the whole of three-dimensional space. The results reviewed here not only show that the space around us seems to be divided into distinct functional regions, but they also suggest that multisensory interactions are modulated by the region of space in which stimuli happen to be presented. We highlight a number of key limitations with previous research in this area, including: (1) The focus on only a very narrow region of two-dimensional space in front of the observer; (2) the use of static stimuli in most research; (3) the study of observers who themselves have been mostly static; and (4) the study of isolated observers. All of these factors may change the way in which the senses interact at any given distance, as can the emotional state/personality of the observer. In summarizing these salient issues, we hope to encourage researchers to consider these factors in their own research in order to gain a better understanding of the spatial constraints on multisensory integration as they affect us in our everyday life.

Audiovisual integration in near and far space: effects of changes in distance and stimulus effectiveness

Abstract A factor that is often not considered in multisensory research is the distance from which information is presented. Interestingly, various studies have shown that the distance at which information is presented can modulate the strength of multisensory interactions. In addition, our everyday multisensory experience in near and far space is rather asymmetrical in terms of retinal image size and stimulus intensity. This asymmetry is the result of the relation between the stimulus-observer distance and its retinal image size and intensity: an object that is further away is generally smaller on the retina as compared to the same object when it is presented nearer. Similarly, auditory intensity decreases as the distance from the observer increases. We investigated how each of these factors alone, and their combination, affected audiovisual integration. Unimodal and bimodal stimuli were presented in near and far space, with and without controlling for distance-dependent changes in retinal image size and intensity. Audiovisual integration was enhanced for stimuli that were presented in far space as compared to near space, but only when the stimuli were not corrected for visual angle and intensity. The same decrease in intensity and retinal size in near space did not enhance audiovisual integration, indicating that these results cannot be explained by changes in stimulus efficacy or an increase in distance alone, but rather by an interaction between these factors. The results are discussed in the context of multisensory experience and spatial uncertainty, and underline the importance of studying multisensory integration in the depth space.

Exogenous spatial attention decreases audiovisual integration

Multisensory integration (MSI) and spatial attention are both mechanisms through which the processing of sensory information can be facilitated. Studies on the interaction between spatial attention and MSI have mainly focused on the interaction between endogenous spatial attention and MSI. Most of these studies have shown that endogenously attending a multisensory target enhances MSI. It is currently unclear, however, whether and how exogenous spatial attention and MSI interact. In the current study, we investigated the interaction between these two important bottom-up processes in two experiments. In Experiment 1 the target location was task-relevant, and in Experiment 2 the target location was task-irrelevant. Valid or invalid exogenous auditory cues were presented before the onset of unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, and audiovisual targets. We observed reliable cueing effects and multisensory response enhancement in both experiments. To examine whether audiovisual integration was influenced by exogenous spatial attention, the amount of race model violation was compared between exogenously attended and unattended targets. In both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, a decrease in MSI was observed when audiovisual targets were exogenously attended, compared to when they were not. The interaction between exogenous attention and MSI was less pronounced in Experiment 2. Therefore, our results indicate that exogenous attention diminishes MSI when spatial orienting is relevant. The results are discussed in terms of models of multisensory integration and attention.

On the relative contributions of multisensory integration and crossmodal exogenous spatial attention to multisensory response enhancement

Two processes that can give rise to multisensory response enhancement (MRE) are multisensory integration (MSI) and crossmodal exogenous spatial attention. It is, however, currently unclear what the relative contribution of each of these is to MRE. We investigated this issue using two tasks that are generally assumed to measure MSI (a redundant target effect task) and crossmodal exogenous spatial attention (a spatial cueing task). One block of trials consisted of unimodal auditory and visual targets designed to provide a unimodal baseline. In two other blocks of trials, the participants were presented with spatially and temporally aligned and misaligned audiovisual (AV) targets (0, 50, 100, and 200ms SOA). In the integration block, the participants were instructed to respond to the onset of the first target stimulus that they detected (A or V). The instruction for the cueing block was to respond only to the onset of the visual targets. The targets could appear at one of three locations: left, center, and right. The participants were instructed to respond only to lateral targets. The results indicated that MRE was caused by MSI at 0ms SOA. At 50ms SOA, both crossmodal exogenous spatial attention and MSI contributed to the observed MRE, whereas the MRE observed at the 100 and 200ms SOAs was attributable to crossmodal exogenous spatial attention, alerting, and temporal preparation. These results therefore suggest that there may be a temporal window in which both MSI and exogenous crossmodal spatial attention can contribute to multisensory response enhancement.

The influence of vertically and horizontally aligned visual distractors on aurally guided saccadic eye movements

Abstract Eye movements towards a new target can be guided or disrupted by input from multiple modalities. The degree of oculomotor competition evoked by a distractor depends on both distractor and target properties, such as distractor salience or certainty regarding the target location. The ability to localize the target is particularly important when studying saccades made towards auditory targets, since determination of elevation and azimuth of a sound are based on different processes, and these processes may be affected independently by a distractor. We investigated the effects of a visual distractor on saccadic eye movements made to an auditory target in a two-dimensional plane. Results showed that the competition evoked by a vertical visual distractor was stronger compared with a horizontal visual distractor. The eye movements that were not captured by the vertical visual distractor were still influenced by it: a deviation of endpoints was seen in the direction of the visual distractor. Furthermore, the interference evoked by a high-contrast visual distractor was stronger compared with low-contrast visual stimuli, which was reflected by a faster initiation of an eye movement towards the high-contrast visual distractor and a stronger shift of endpoints in the direction of the high-contrast visual distractor. Together, these findings show that the influence of a visual distractor on aurally guided eye movements depends strongly on its location relative to the target, and to a lesser extent, on stimulus contrast.

Multisensory Perception and the Coding of Space

Vision, audition, and touch all code the space around us, or rather the things that are located in the space around us, in a different way. Yet, together our senses form a coherent spatial representation of our environment. In this chapter we will discuss how space is coded through vision, audition, and touch, and how spatial information from these senses is combined or integrated. We will continue by discussing neuropsychological impairments that affect spatial perception and multisensory integration, and finally how multisensory stimulation may help reduce or overcome some of these impairments.

Non-lateralized auditory input enhances averaged vectors in the oculomotor system

The decision about which location should be the goal of the next eye movement is known to be determined by the interaction between auditory and visual input. This interaction can be explained by the vector theory that states that each element (either visual or auditory) in a scene evokes a vector in the oculomotor system. These vectors determine the direction in which the eye movement is initiated. Because auditory input is lateralized and localizable in most studies, it is currently unclear how non-lateralized auditory input interacts with the vectors evoked by visual input. In the current study, we investigated the influence of a non-lateralized auditory non-target on saccade accuracy (saccade angle deviation from the target) and latency in a single-target condition in Experiment 1 and a double-target condition in Experiment 2. The visual targets in Experiment 2 were positioned in such a way that saccades on average landed in between the two targets (i.e., a global effect). There was no effect of the auditory input on saccade accuracy in the single-target condition, but auditory input did influence saccade accuracy in the double-target condition. In both experiments, saccade latency increased when auditory input accompanied the visual target(s). Together, these findings show that non-lateralized auditory input enhances all vectors evoked by visual input. The results will be discussed in terms of their possible neural substrates.

Visually Induced Inhibition of Return Affects the Integration of Auditory and Visual Information.

Multisensory integration (MSI) and exogenous spatial attention can both speedup responses to perceptual events. Recently, it has been shown that audiovisual integration at exogenously attended locations is reduced relative to unattended locations. This effect was observed at short cue-target intervals (200–250 ms). At longer intervals, however, the initial benefits of exogenous shifts of spatial attention at the cued location are often replaced by response time (RT) costs (also known as Inhibition of Return, IOR). Given these opposing cueing effects at shorter versus longer intervals, we decided to investigate whether MSI would also be affected by IOR. Uninformative exogenous visual spatial cues were presented between 350 and 450 ms prior to the onset of auditory, visual, and audiovisual targets. As expected, IOR was observed for visual targets (invalid cue RT < valid cue RT). For auditory and audiovisual targets, neither IOR nor any spatial cueing effects were observed. The amount of relative multisensory response enhancement and race model inequality violation was larger for uncued as compared with cued locations indicating that IOR reduces MSI. The results are discussed in the context of changes in unisensory signal strength at cued as compared with uncued locations.

Erratum to: Exogenous spatial attention decreases audiovisual integration

Multisensory integration (MSI) and spatial attention are both mechanisms through which the processing of sensory information can be facilitated. Studies on the interaction between spatial attention and MSI have mainly focused on the interaction between endogenous spatial attention and MSI. Most of these studies have shown that endogenously attending a multisensory target enhances MSI. It is currently unclear, however, whether and how exogenous spatial attention and MSI interact. In the current study, we investigated the interaction between these two important bottom-up processes in two experiments. In Experiment 1 the target location was task-relevant, and in Experiment 2 the target location was task-irrelevant. Valid or invalid exogenous auditory cues were presented before the onset of unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, and audiovisual targets. We observed reliable cueing effects and multisensory response enhancement in both experiments. To examine whether audiovisual integration was influenced by exogenous spatial attention, the amount of race model violation was compared between exogenously attended and unattended targets. In both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, a decrease in MSI was observed when audiovisual targets were exogenously attended, compared to when they were not. The interaction between exogenous attention and MSI was less pronounced in Experiment 2. Therefore, our results indicate that exogenous attention diminishes MSI when spatial orienting is relevant. The results are discussed in terms of models of multisensory integration and attention.