Assessing the role of stimulus probability on the Colavita visual dominance effect

Participants presented with unimodal auditory (A), unimodal visual (V), or bimodal audiovisual stimuli (AV) in a task in which they have to identify the modality of the targets as rapidly as possible, fail to respond to the auditory component of bimodal targets significantly more often than they fail to respond to the visual component. In the majority of published studies on this phenomenon, known as the Colavita effect, the auditory, visual, and bimodal stimuli have been presented in the ratio 40A:40V:20AV. In the present study, we investigated whether the relatively low frequency with which the bimodal targets in previous studies have been presented may have contributed to participants’ difficulty in responding to such targets correctly. We manipulated the bimodal target probability by presenting the stimuli in the ratios 20A:20V:60AV, in Experiment 1; 5A:5V:90AV, 25A:25V:50AV, and 45A:45V:10AV, in Experiment 2. A significant Colavita visual dominance effect was observed when the bimodal targets were presented on 60% of the trials or less. We suggest that increasing the frequency of bimodal targets may have provided an exogenous cue to performance, that reduced the necessity for endogenous attention when selecting the appropriate response to make to bimodal targets.     

Spatial coincidence modulates the Colavita visual dominance effect

The Colavita visual dominance effect refers to the phenomenon whereby participants presented with auditory, visual, or audiovisual stimuli in a speeded response task sometimes fail to respond to the auditory component of the bimodal targets. We conducted an experiment on the Colavita effect in which the auditory and visual components of the bimodal targets were presented from either the same or different positions (sides) at one of two eccentricities (13 degrees or 26 degrees ). Participants were presented with auditory, visual, and bimodal stimuli to which they had to respond by pressing an auditory response key, a visual response key, or both response keys, respectively. On bimodal trials, participants failed to respond to the auditory stimulus significantly more often than they failed to respond to the visual stimulus, resulting in a significant Colavita visual dominance effect. The Colavita effect was significantly larger when the stimuli were presented from the same position than when they were presented from different positions. These results provide the first empirical evidence that the Colavita effect is modulated by the spatial coincidence of the auditory and visual stimuli.     

Seeing the light: exploring the Colavita visual dominance effect

The Colavita visual dominance effect refers to the phenomenon whereby participants presented with unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, or bimodal audiovisual stimuli in a speeded discrimination task, fail to respond to the auditory component of bimodal targets significantly more often than they fail to respond to the visual component. The Colavita effect was demonstrated in this study when participants were presented with unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, or bimodal stimuli (in the ratios 40:40:20, Experiment 1; or 33:33:33, Experiment 2), to which they had to respond by pressing an auditory response key, a visual response key, or both response keys. The Colavita effect was also demonstrated when participants had to respond to the bimodal targets using a dedicated third (bimodal) response key (Experiment 3). These results therefore suggest that stimulus probability and the response demands of the task do not contribute significantly to the Colavita effect. In Experiment 4, we investigated what role exogenous attention toward a sensory modality plays in the Colavita effect. A significantly larger Colavita effect was observed when a visual cue preceded the bimodal target than when an auditory cue preceded it. This result suggests that the Colavita visual dominance effect can be partially explained in terms of the greater exogenous attention-capturing qualities of visual versus auditory stimuli.     

Is visual dominance modulated by the threat value of visual and auditory stimuli?

The simultaneous presentation of a visual and an auditory stimulus can lead to a decrease in people’s ability to perceive or respond to the auditory stimulus. In this study, we investigate the effect that threat has upon this phenomenon, known as the Colavita visual dominance effect. Participants performed two blocks of trials containing 40% visual, 40% auditory, and 20% bimodal trials. The first block of trials was identical for all participants, while in the second block, either the visual stimulus (visual threat condition), auditory stimulus (auditory threat condition), or neither stimulus (control condition) was fear-conditioned using aversive electrocutaneous stimuli. We predicted that, when compared with the control condition, this visual dominance effect would increase in the visual threat condition and decrease in the auditory threat condition. This hypothesis was partially supported by the data. In particular, the results showed that the fear-conditioning of the visual stimulus significantly increased the visual dominance effect relative to the control condition. However, the fear-conditioning of the auditory stimulus did not reduce the visual dominance effect but instead increased it slightly. These findings are discussed in terms of the role that attention and arousal play in the dominance of vision over audition.

Repetition blindness and the Colavita effect

People often fail to respond to an auditory target if they have to respond to a visual target presented at the same time, a phenomenon known as the Colavita visual dominance effect. To date, the Colavita effect has only ever been demonstrated in detection tasks in which participants respond to pre-defined visual, auditory, or bimodal audiovisual target stimuli. Here, we tested the Colavita effect when the target was defined by a rule, namely the repetition of any event (a picture, a sound, or both) in simultaneously-presented streams of pictures and sounds. Given previous findings that people are better at detecting auditory repetitions than visual repetitions, we expected that the Colavita visual dominance effect might disappear (or even reverse). Contrary to this prediction, however, visual dominance (i.e., the typical Colavita effect) was observed, with participants still neglecting significantly more auditory events than visual events in response to bimodal targets. The visual dominance for bimodal repetitions was observed despite the fact that participants missed significantly more unimodal visual repetitions than unimodal auditory repetitions. These results therefore extend the Colavita visual dominance effect to a domain where auditory dominance has traditionally been observed. In addition, our results reveal that the Colavita effect occurs at a more abstract, rule-based, level of representation than tested in previous research.     

Semantic congruency and the Colavita visual dominance effect

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.

Sensory dominance in combinations of audio,visual and haptic stimuli

Participants presented with auditory, visual, or bi-sensory audio–visual stimuli in a speeded discrimination task, fail to respond to the auditory component of the bi-sensory trials significantly more often than they fail to respond to the visual component—a ‘visual dominance’ effect. The current study investigated further the sensory dominance phenomenon in all combinations of auditory, visual and haptic stimuli. We found a similar visual dominance effect also in bi-sensory trials of combined haptic–visual stimuli, but no bias towards either sensory modality in bi-sensory trials of haptic–auditory stimuli. When presented with tri-sensory trials of combined auditory–visual–haptic stimuli, participants made more errors of responding only to two corresponding sensory signals than errors of responding only to a single sensory modality, however, there were no biases towards either sensory modality (or sensory pairs) in the distribution of both types of errors (i.e. responding only to a single stimulus or to pairs of stimuli). These results suggest that while vision can dominate both the auditory and the haptic sensory modalities, it is limited to bi-sensory combinations in which the visual signal is combined with another single stimulus. However, in a tri-sensory combination when a visual signal is presented simultaneously with both the auditory and the haptic signals, the probability of missing two signals is much smaller than of missing only one signal and therefore the visual dominance disappears.     

When vision ‘extinguishes’ touch in neurologically-normal people: extending the Colavita visual dominance effect

Research has shown that people fail to report the presence of the auditory component of suprathreshold audiovisual targets significantly more often than they fail to detect the visual component in speeded response tasks. Here, we investigated whether this phenomenon, known as the “Colavita effect”, also affects people’s perception of visuotactile stimuli as well. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants made speeded detection/discrimination responses to unimodal visual, unimodal tactile, and bimodal (visual and tactile) stimuli. A significant Colavita visual dominance effect was observed (i.e., participants failed to respond to touch far more often than they failed to respond to vision on the bimodal trials). This dominance of vision over touch was significantly larger when the stimuli were presented from the same position than when they were presented from different positions (Experiment 3), and still occurred even when the subjective intensities of the visual and tactile stimuli had been matched (Experiment 4), thus ruling out a simple intensity-based account of the results. These results suggest that the Colavita visual dominance effect (over touch) may result from a competition between the neural representations of the two stimuli for access to consciousness and/or the recruitment of attentional resources.