Valerio Santangelo

Multisensory cues capture spatial attention regardless of perceptual load.

We compared the ability of auditory, visual, and audiovisual (bimodal) exogenous cues to capture visuo-spatial attention under conditions of no load versus high perceptual load. Participants had to discriminate the elevation (up vs. down) of visual targets preceded by either unimodal or bimodal cues under conditions of high perceptual load (in which they had to monitor a rapidly presented central stream of visual letters for occasionally presented target digits) or no perceptual load (in which the central stream was replaced by a fixation point). The results of 3 experiments showed that all 3 cues captured visuo-spatial attention in the no-load condition. By contrast, only the bimodal cues captured visuo-spatial attention in the high-load condition, indicating for the first time that multisensory integration can play a key role in disengaging spatial attention from a concurrent perceptually demanding stimulus.

The Suppression of Reflexive Visual and Auditory Orienting when Attention Is Otherwise Engaged.

Two experiments were conducted to examine whether abrupt onsets are capable of reflexively capturing attention when they occur outside the current focus of spatial attention, as would be expected if exogenous orienting operates in a truly automatic fashion. The authors established a highly focused attentional state by means of the central presentation of a stream of visual or auditory characters, which participants sometimes had to monitor. No intramodal reflexive cuing effects were observed in either audition or vision when participants performed either an exogenous visual or auditory orthogonal cuing task together with the central focused attention task. These results suggest that reflexive unimodal orienting is not truly automatic. The fact that cuing effects were eliminated under both unimodal and cross-modal conditions is consistent with the view that auditory and visual reflexive spatial orienting are controlled by a common underlying neural substrate.

Is the exogenous orienting of spatial attention truly automatic? Evidence from unimodal and multisensory studies.

The last decade has seen great progress in the study of the nature of crossmodal links in exogenous and endogenous spatial attention (see [Spence, C., McDonald, J., & Driver, J. (2004). Exogenous spatial cuing studies of human crossmodal attention and multisensory integration. In C. Spence, & J. Driver (Eds.), Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention (pp. 277-320). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.], for a recent review). A growing body of research now highlights the existence of robust crossmodal links between auditory, visual, and tactile spatial attention. However, until recently, studies of exogenous and endogenous attention have proceeded relatively independently. In daily life, however, these two forms of attentional orienting continuously compete for the control of our attentional resources, and ultimately, our awareness. It is therefore critical to try and understand how exogenous and endogenous attention interact in both the unimodal context of the laboratory and the multisensory contexts that are more representative of everyday life. To date, progress in understanding the interaction between these two forms of orienting has primarily come from unimodal studies of visual attention. We therefore start by summarizing what has been learned from this large body of empirical research, before going on to review more recent studies that have started to investigate the interaction between endogenous and exogenous orienting in a multisensory setting. We also discuss the evidence suggesting that exogenous spatial orienting is not truly automatic, at least when assessed in a crossmodal context. Several possible models describing the interaction between endogenous and exogenous orienting are outlined and then evaluated in terms of the extant data.

Capturing Spatial Attention with Multisensory Cues

We assessed the influence of multisensory interactions on the exogenous orienting of spatial attention by comparing the ability of auditory, tactile, and audiotactile exogenous cues to capture visuospatial attention under conditions of no perceptual load versus high perceptual load. In Experiment 1, participants discriminated the elevation of visual targets preceded by either unimodal or bimodal cues under conditions of either a high perceptual load (involving the monitoring of a rapidly presented central stream of visual letters for occasionally presented target digits) or no perceptual load (when the central stream was replaced by a fixation point). All of the cues captured spatial attention in the no-load condition, whereas only the bimodal cues captured visuospatial attention in the highload condition. In Experiment 2, we ruled out the possibility that the presentation of any changing stimulus at fixation (i.e., a passively monitored stream of letters) would eliminate exogenous orienting, which instead appears to be a consequence of high perceptual load conditions (Experiment 1). These results demonstrate that multisensory cues capture spatial attention more effectively than unimodal cues under conditions of concurrent perceptual load.

Multisensory warning signals: when spatial correspondence matters

We report a study designed to investigate the effectiveness of task-irrelevant unimodal and bimodal audiotactile stimuli in capturing a person’s spatial attention away from a highly perceptually demanding central rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task. In “Experiment 1”, participants made speeded elevation discrimination responses to peripheral visual targets following the presentation of auditory stimuli that were either presented alone or else were paired with centrally presented tactile stimuli. The results showed that the unimodal auditory stimuli only captured spatial attention when participants were not performing the RSVP task, while the bimodal audiotactile stimuli did not result in any performance change in any of the conditions. In “Experiment 2”, spatial auditory stimuli were either presented alone or else were paired with a tactile stimulus presented from the same direction. In contrast to the results of “Experiment 1”, the bimodal audiotactile stimuli were especially effective in capturing participants’ spatial attention from the concurrent RSVP task. These results therefore provide support for the claim that auditory and tactile stimuli should be presented from the same direction if they are to capture attention effectively. Implications for multisensory warning signal design are discussed.

Stimulus-Driven Orienting of Visuo-Spatial Attention in Complex Dynamic Environments

In everyday life attention operates within complex and dynamic environments, while laboratory paradigms typically employ simple and stereotyped stimuli. This fMRI study investigated stimulus-driven spatial attention using a virtual-environment video. We explored the influence of bottom-up signals by computing saliency maps of the environment and by introducing attention-grabbing events in the video. We parameterized the efficacy of these signals for the orienting of spatial attention by measuring eye movements and used these parameters to analyze the imaging data. The efficacy of bottom-up signals modulated ongoing activity in dorsal fronto-parietal regions and transient activation of the ventral attention system. Our results demonstrate that the combination of computational, behavioral, and imaging techniques enables studying cognitive functions in ecologically valid contexts. We highlight the central role of the efficacy of stimulus-driven signals in both dorsal and ventral attention systems, with a dissociation of the efficacy of background salience versus distinctive events in the two systems.

The role of working memory in auditory selective attention.

A growing body of research now demonstrates that working memory plays an important role in controlling the extent to which irrelevant visual distractors are processed during visual selective attention tasks (e.g., Lavie, Hirst, De Fockert, & Viding, 2004). Recently, it has been shown that the successful selection of tactile information also depends on the availability of working memory (Dalton, Lavie, & Spence, 2009). Here, we investigate whether working memory plays a role in auditory selective attention. Participants focused their attention on short continuous bursts of white noise (targets) while attempting to ignore pulsed bursts of noise (distractors). Distractor interference in this auditory task, as measured in terms of the difference in performance between congruent and incongruent distractor trials, increased significantly under high (vs. low) load in a concurrent working-memory task. These results provide the first evidence demonstrating a causal role for working memory in reducing interference by irrelevant auditory distractors.

Capturing spatial attention with multisensory cues: a review.

The last 30 years have seen numerous studies demonstrating unimodal and crossmodal spatial cuing effects. However, surprisingly few studies have attempted to investigate whether multisensory cues might be any more effective in capturing a persons spatial attention than unimodal cues. Indeed, until very recently, the consensus view was that multisensory cues were, in fact, no more effective. However, the results of several recent studies have overturned this conclusion, by showing that multisensory cues retain their attention-capturing ability under conditions of perceptual load (i.e., when participants are simultaneously engaged in a concurrent attention-demanding task) while their constituent signals (when presented unimodally) do not. Here we review the empirical literature on multisensory spatial cuing effects and highlight the implications that this research has for the design of more effective warning signals in applied settings.

Interactions between voluntary and stimulus-driven spatial attention mechanisms across sensory modalities

In everyday life, the allocation of spatial attention typically entails the interplay between voluntary (endogenous) and stimulus-driven (exogenous) attention. Furthermore, stimuli in different sensory modalities can jointly influence the direction of spatial attention, due to the existence of cross-sensory links in attentional control. Using fMRI, we examined the physiological basis of these interactions. We induced exogenous shifts of auditory spatial attention while participants engaged in an endogenous visuospatial cueing task. Participants discriminated visual targets in the left or right hemifield. A central visual cue preceded the visual targets, predicting the target location on 75% of the trials (endogenous visual attention). In the interval between the endogenous cue and the visual target, task-irrelevant nonpredictive auditory stimuli were briefly presented either in the left or right hemifield (exogenous auditory attention). Consistent with previous unisensory visual studies, activation of the ventral fronto-parietal attentional network was observed when the visual targets were presented at the uncued side (endogenous invalid trials, requiring visuospatial reorienting), as compared with validly cued targets. Critically, we found that the side of the task-irrelevant auditory stimulus modulated these activations, reducing spatial reorienting effects when the auditory stimulus was presented on the same side as the upcoming (invalid) visual target. These results demonstrate that multisensory mechanisms of attentional control can integrate endogenous and exogenous spatial information, jointly determining attentional orienting toward the most relevant spatial location.

Perceptual load affects exogenous spatial orienting while working memory load does not

We examined whether or not increasing visual perceptual load or visual working memory (WM) load would affect the exogenous orienting of visuo-spatial attention, in order to assess whether or not exogenous orienting is genuinely automatic. In Experiment 1, we manipulated visual perceptual load by means of a central morphing shape that in some trials morphed into a particular target shape (a rectangle) that participants had to detect. In Experiment 2, the possibility that the presentation of any changing stimulus at fixation would eliminate exogenous orienting was ruled out, by presenting two alternating letters at fixation. In Experiment 3, we manipulated visual WM load by means of arrays consisting of three (low-load) or five (high-load) randomly located coloured squares. The participants had to remember these items in order to judge whether a cued square had been presented in the same or different colour at the end of each trial. In all the experiments, exogenous visuo-spatial attentional orienting was measured by means of an orthogonal spatial cuing task, in which the participants had to discriminate the elevation (up vs. down) of a visual target previously cued by a spatially nonpredictive visual cue. The results showed that increasing the perceptual load of the task eliminated the exogenous orienting of visuo-spatial attention. By contrast, increasing the WM load had no effect on spatial orienting. These results are discussed in terms of the light that they shed on claims regarding the automaticity of visuo-spatial exogenous orienting.