The spatial resolution of crossmodal attention

Implications for the design of multimodal interfaces

Robert Gray, Rayka Mohebbi, Hong Z. Tan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Previous research on crossmodal attentional orienting has reported speeded reaction times (RT) when the stimuli from the different modalities are in the same spatial location and slowed RTs when the stimuli are presented in very different locations (e.g., opposite sides of the body). However, little is known about what occurs for spatial interactions between these two extremes. We systematically varied the separation between cues and targets to quantify the spatial distribution of crossmodal attention. The orthogonal cueing paradigm [Spence et al. 1998]was used. Visual targets presented above or below the forearm were preceded by either vibrotactile cues presented on the forearm, auditory cues presented below the forearm, or visual cues presented on the forearm. The presentation of both unimodal and crossmodal cues led to a roughly monotonic increase in RT as a function of the cue-target separation. Unimodal visual cueing resulted in an attentional focus that was significantly narrower than that produced by crossmodal cues: the distribution of visual attention for visual cues had roughly half of the lateral extent of that produced by tactile cueing and roughly one fourth of the lateral extent as that produced by auditory cueing. This occurred when both seven (Experiment 1) and three (Experiment 2) cue locations were used suggesting that the effects are not primarily due to differences in the ability to localize the cues. These findings suggest that the location of tactile and auditory warning signals does not have to be controlled as precisely as the location of visual warning signals to facilitate a response to the critical visual event.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number4
JournalACM Transactions on Applied Perception
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2009

Fingerprint

Multimodal Interfaces
Spatial Resolution
Cues
Forearm
Reaction Time
Target
Lateral
Touch
Visual Attention
Spatial distribution
Spatial Distribution
Monotonic
Modality
Experiments
Experiment
Vision
Design
Extremes
Quantify
Paradigm

Keywords

  • Attention
  • Warnings

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science(all)
  • Theoretical Computer Science
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Cite this

The spatial resolution of crossmodal attention : Implications for the design of multimodal interfaces. / Gray, Robert; Mohebbi, Rayka; Tan, Hong Z.

In: ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, Vol. 6, No. 1, 4, 01.02.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{64f43be128ba4a9199cb17e5b5f10633,
title = "The spatial resolution of crossmodal attention: Implications for the design of multimodal interfaces",
abstract = "Previous research on crossmodal attentional orienting has reported speeded reaction times (RT) when the stimuli from the different modalities are in the same spatial location and slowed RTs when the stimuli are presented in very different locations (e.g., opposite sides of the body). However, little is known about what occurs for spatial interactions between these two extremes. We systematically varied the separation between cues and targets to quantify the spatial distribution of crossmodal attention. The orthogonal cueing paradigm [Spence et al. 1998]was used. Visual targets presented above or below the forearm were preceded by either vibrotactile cues presented on the forearm, auditory cues presented below the forearm, or visual cues presented on the forearm. The presentation of both unimodal and crossmodal cues led to a roughly monotonic increase in RT as a function of the cue-target separation. Unimodal visual cueing resulted in an attentional focus that was significantly narrower than that produced by crossmodal cues: the distribution of visual attention for visual cues had roughly half of the lateral extent of that produced by tactile cueing and roughly one fourth of the lateral extent as that produced by auditory cueing. This occurred when both seven (Experiment 1) and three (Experiment 2) cue locations were used suggesting that the effects are not primarily due to differences in the ability to localize the cues. These findings suggest that the location of tactile and auditory warning signals does not have to be controlled as precisely as the location of visual warning signals to facilitate a response to the critical visual event.",
keywords = "Attention, Warnings",
author = "Robert Gray and Rayka Mohebbi and Tan, {Hong Z.}",
year = "2009",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1145/1462055.1462059",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
journal = "ACM Transactions on Applied Perception",
issn = "1544-3558",
publisher = "Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The spatial resolution of crossmodal attention

T2 - Implications for the design of multimodal interfaces

AU - Gray, Robert

AU - Mohebbi, Rayka

AU - Tan, Hong Z.

PY - 2009/2/1

Y1 - 2009/2/1

N2 - Previous research on crossmodal attentional orienting has reported speeded reaction times (RT) when the stimuli from the different modalities are in the same spatial location and slowed RTs when the stimuli are presented in very different locations (e.g., opposite sides of the body). However, little is known about what occurs for spatial interactions between these two extremes. We systematically varied the separation between cues and targets to quantify the spatial distribution of crossmodal attention. The orthogonal cueing paradigm [Spence et al. 1998]was used. Visual targets presented above or below the forearm were preceded by either vibrotactile cues presented on the forearm, auditory cues presented below the forearm, or visual cues presented on the forearm. The presentation of both unimodal and crossmodal cues led to a roughly monotonic increase in RT as a function of the cue-target separation. Unimodal visual cueing resulted in an attentional focus that was significantly narrower than that produced by crossmodal cues: the distribution of visual attention for visual cues had roughly half of the lateral extent of that produced by tactile cueing and roughly one fourth of the lateral extent as that produced by auditory cueing. This occurred when both seven (Experiment 1) and three (Experiment 2) cue locations were used suggesting that the effects are not primarily due to differences in the ability to localize the cues. These findings suggest that the location of tactile and auditory warning signals does not have to be controlled as precisely as the location of visual warning signals to facilitate a response to the critical visual event.

AB - Previous research on crossmodal attentional orienting has reported speeded reaction times (RT) when the stimuli from the different modalities are in the same spatial location and slowed RTs when the stimuli are presented in very different locations (e.g., opposite sides of the body). However, little is known about what occurs for spatial interactions between these two extremes. We systematically varied the separation between cues and targets to quantify the spatial distribution of crossmodal attention. The orthogonal cueing paradigm [Spence et al. 1998]was used. Visual targets presented above or below the forearm were preceded by either vibrotactile cues presented on the forearm, auditory cues presented below the forearm, or visual cues presented on the forearm. The presentation of both unimodal and crossmodal cues led to a roughly monotonic increase in RT as a function of the cue-target separation. Unimodal visual cueing resulted in an attentional focus that was significantly narrower than that produced by crossmodal cues: the distribution of visual attention for visual cues had roughly half of the lateral extent of that produced by tactile cueing and roughly one fourth of the lateral extent as that produced by auditory cueing. This occurred when both seven (Experiment 1) and three (Experiment 2) cue locations were used suggesting that the effects are not primarily due to differences in the ability to localize the cues. These findings suggest that the location of tactile and auditory warning signals does not have to be controlled as precisely as the location of visual warning signals to facilitate a response to the critical visual event.

KW - Attention

KW - Warnings

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62149097515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62149097515&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/1462055.1462059

DO - 10.1145/1462055.1462059

M3 - Article

VL - 6

JO - ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

JF - ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

SN - 1544-3558

IS - 1

M1 - 4

ER -