Cited by 94Multisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory InteractionsVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Auditory, tactile, and multisensory cues facilitate search for dynamic visual stimuli

Open access
Ngo, Mary Kim, Spence, Charles·2010·Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

Abstract

Presenting an auditory or tactile cue in temporal synchrony with a change in the color of a visual target can facilitate participants' visual search performance. In the present study, we compared the magnitude of unimodal auditory, vibrotactile, and bimodal (i.e., multisensory) cuing benefits when the nonvisual cues were presented in temporal synchrony with the changing of the target's color (Experiments 1 and 2). The target (a horizontal or vertical line segment) was presented among a number of distractors (tilted line segments) that also changed color at various times. In Experiments 3 and 4, the cues were also made spatially informative with regard to the location of the visual target. The unimodal and bimodal cues gave rise to an equivalent (significant) facilitation of participants' visual search performance relative to a no-cue baseline condition. Making the unimodal auditory and vibrotactile cues spatially informative produced further performance improvements (on validly cued trials), as compared with cues that were spatially uninformative or otherwise spatially invalid. A final experiment was conducted in order to determine whether cue location (close to versus far from the visual display) would influence participants' visual search performance. Auditory cues presented close to the visual search display were found to produce significantly better performance than cues presented over headphones. Taken together, these results have implications for the design of nonvisual and multisensory warning signals used in complex visual displays.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/app.72.6.1654

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ngo, M. K., & Spence, C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Ngo, Mary Kim
Venue
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Published
2010-08
Volume
72
Issue
6
Pages
1654-1665
ISSN
  • 1943-3921 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-393X
OpenAlex
W2045450941
Cited by
94
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
9.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Attention Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Oxford
  • Clarendon Fund
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
visual search, auditory cues, vibrotactile cues, multisensory cues, temporal synchronization, color change detection
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Auditory Perception, Color Perception, Cues, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time, Touch, Vibration, Young Adult

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