Cited by 32Multisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory InteractionsVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Orienting attention in visual space by nociceptive stimuli: investigation with a temporal order judgment task based on the adaptive PSI method

Open access
Filbrich, Lieve, Alamia, Andrea, Burns, Soline, Legrain, Valéry·2017·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

Despite their high relevance for defending the integrity of the body, crossmodal links between nociception, the neural system specifically coding potentially painful information, and vision are still poorly studied, especially the effects of nociception on visual perception. This study investigated if, and in which time window, a nociceptive stimulus can attract attention to its location on the body, independently of voluntary control, to facilitate the processing of visual stimuli occurring in the same side of space as the limb on which the visual stimulus was applied. In a temporal order judgment task based on an adaptive procedure, participants judged which of two visual stimuli, one presented next to either hand in either side of space, had been perceived first. Each pair of visual stimuli was preceded (by 200, 400, or 600 ms) by a nociceptive stimulus applied either unilaterally on one single hand, or bilaterally, on both hands simultaneously. Results show that, as compared to the bilateral condition, participants' judgments were biased to the advantage of the visual stimuli that occurred in the same side of space as the hand on which a unilateral, nociceptive stimulus was applied. This effect was present in a time window ranging from 200 to 600 ms, but importantly, biases increased with decreasing time interval. These results suggest that nociceptive stimuli can affect the perceptual processing of spatially congruent visual inputs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00221-017-4951-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 64 · Cited by 32

Authors
Filbrich, L., Alamia, A., Burns, S., & Legrain, V.
Affiliations
UCLouvain (BE)
Corresponding author
Filbrich, Lieve
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
2017-04-03
Volume
235
Issue
7
Pages
2069-2079
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
OpenAlex
W2605109902
Cited by
32
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7
FWCI
7.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2017-07-04)
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
nociception, cross-modal attention, visual attention, temporal order judgment, spatial congruence, visual perception
MeSH terms
Orientation, Spatial, Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Female, Hand, Humans, Judgment, Functional Laterality, Male, Photic Stimulation, Physical Stimulation, Psychophysics, Reaction Time, Visual Perception, Young Adult, Nociception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review