CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 271Multisensory perception and integrationTactile and Sensory InteractionsMotor Control and Adaptation

Cross-modal links in exogenous covert spatial orienting between touch, audition, and vision

Open access
Spence, Charles, Nicholls, Michael E. R., Gillespie, Nicole, Driver, Jon·1998·Perception & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/bf03206045
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Three experiments investigated cross-modal links between touch, audition, and vision in the control of covert exogenous orienting. In the first two experiments, participants made speeded discrimination responses (continuous vs. pulsed) for tactile targets presented randomly to the index finger of either hand. Targets were preceded at a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (150, 200, or 300 msec) by a spatially uninformative cue that was either auditory (Experiment 1) or visual (Experiment 2) on the same or opposite side as the tactile target. Tactile discriminations were more rapid and accurate when cue and target occurred on the same side, revealing cross-modal covert orienting. In Experiment 3, spatially uninformative tactile cues were presented prior to randomly intermingled auditory and visual targets requiring an elevation discrimination response (up vs. down). Responses were significantly faster for targets in both modalities when presented ipsilateral to the tactile cue. These findings demonstrate that the peripheral presentation of spatially uninformative auditory and visual cues produces cross-modal orienting that affects touch, and that tactile cues can also produce cross-modal covert orienting that affects audition and vision.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03206045

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The crossmodal congruency task revealed larger CCE for visual distractors close to versus far from the stimulated hand.

    “This method revealed larger CCE for visual distractors close to (vs.far from) the stimulated hand”

    From The Peripersonal Space in a social world (2021) · cites this paper as Spence et al., 1998

    The General Discussion reports an advantage for targets ipsilateral to cross-modal cues, not a crossmodal congruency effect. A search for visual distractors near versus far from the stimulated hand found no passage addressing that comparison (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. BUTTER, C. M. (1987).Varietiesof attentionand disturbancesof attention: A neuropsychological analysis. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Neurophysi- ological and neuropsychological aspects ofspatial neglect (pp. 1-23). Amsterdam: Elsevier: North-Holland.
  2. CHEAL, M., & LYON, D. R. (1991). Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choicediscrimination.Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psy- chology, 43A, 859-880.
  3. DRIVER, J., & SPENCE, C. J. (in press). Crossmodallinks in spatial at- tention. Proceedings ofthe Royal Society ofLondon: Series B.
  4. GROH, J. M., & SPARKS, D. L. (1996). Saccades to somatosensory tar- gets: 2. Motor convergencein primate superior coIliculus.Journal of Neurophysiology, 75, 428-438.
  5. HEFFNER, R. S., & HEFFNER, H. E. (I 992b). Visualfactorsin sound local- izationin mammals.Journal ofComparative Neurology, 317, 2I9-232.
  6. LADAVAS, E. (1993). Shifts of attention in patients with visual neglect. In I. H. Robertson & 1. C. Marshall (Eds.), Unilateral neglect: Clinical and experimental studies (pp. 193-209). Hillsdale, Nl: Erlbaum.
  7. MONDOR, T. A., & ZATORRE, R. 1. (1995). Shifting and focussing audi- tory spatial attention. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 387-409.
  8. POSNER,M. I., NISSEN, M. 1., & OGDEN, W.C. (1978). Attended and un- attended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. In H. I. Pick & I. 1. Saltzman (Eds.), Modes ofperceiving and process- ing information (pp. 137-157). Hillsdale, Nl: Erlbaum.
  9. PUMPHREY, R. 1. (1950). Hearing. Symposium ofthe Societyfor Exper- imental Biology: Physiological Mechanisms in Animal Behavior, 4, 3-18.
  10. SCHROGER, E., WOLFF, C; TSCHAKERT, R., & SCHUBO, A. (in press). In- voluntary attentional capture versus voluntary attentional orienting in audition. In H.-1.
  11. Heinze, T.F. Mimte, & G. R. Mangun (Eds.), Map- ping cognition in time and space.
  12. SIMON, 1. R., & CRAFT, 1. L. (1970). Effects ofan irrelevant auditory stim- ulus on visual choice reaction time. Journal ofExperimental Psychol- ogy, 86, 272-274.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Spence, C., Nicholls, M. E. R., Gillespie, N., & Driver, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Spence, Charles
  • Driver, Jon
ORCID
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1998-06
Volume
60
Issue
4
Pages
544-557
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
DOI
10.3758/bf03206045
OpenAlex
W2025705248
Cited by
271
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
14.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Medical Research Council
  • Australian Research Council
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 › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
cross-modal correspondence, covert orienting, tactile cues, auditory cues, visual cues, stimulus onset asynchrony, tactile discrimination, multisensory integration
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Auditory Perception, Female, Humans, Male, Space Perception, Touch, Visual Perception

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