Cited by 434Multisensory perception and integrationNeuroscience and Music PerceptionTactile and Sensory Interactions

Selective Attention and Audiovisual Integration: Is Attending to Both Modalities a Prerequisite for Early Integration?

Open access
Talsma, D., Doty, T. J., Woldorff, M. G.·2006·Cerebral Cortex

Abstract

Interactions between multisensory integration and attention were studied using a combined audiovisual streaming design and a rapid serial visual presentation paradigm. Event-related potentials (ERPs) following audiovisual objects (AV) were compared with the sum of the ERPs following auditory (A) and visual objects (V). Integration processes were expressed as the difference between these AV and (A + V) responses and were studied while attention was directed to one or both modalities or directed elsewhere. Results show that multisensory integration effects depend on the multisensory objects being fully attended--that is, when both the visual and auditory senses were attended. In this condition, a superadditive audiovisual integration effect was observed on the P50 component. When unattended, this effect was reversed; the P50 components of multisensory ERPs were smaller than the unisensory sum. Additionally, we found an enhanced late frontal negativity when subjects attended the visual component of a multisensory object. This effect, bearing a strong resemblance to the auditory processing negativity, appeared to reflect late attention-related processing that had spread to encompass the auditory component of the multisensory object. In conclusion, our results shed new light on how the brain processes multisensory auditory and visual information, including how attention modulates multisensory integration processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/cercor/bhk016

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Talsma, D., Doty, T. J., & Woldorff, M. G.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
Cerebral Cortex
Published
2006-03-31
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
679-690
ISSN
  • 1047-3211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2199
OpenAlex
W2156150357
Cited by
434
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 20
FWCI
24.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cerebral Cortex (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH64015)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS051048)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
multisensory integration, audiovisual integration, selective attention, P50, rapid serial visual presentation, audiovisual streaming, event-related potentials
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Discrimination, Psychological, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Scalp

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