Abstract

The capacities of unimodal processes such as visual and auditory working memory, multiple object tracking, and attention have been heavily researched in the psychological science literature. In recent years there has been an increase in the amount of research into multimodal processes such as the integration of auditory and visual stimuli, but to my knowledge, there has only been a single published article to date investigating the capacity of audiovisual integration, which found that the capacity of audiovisual integration is limited to a single item. The purpose of this dissertation is to elucidate some of the factors that contribute to the capacity of audiovisual integration, and to illustrate that the interaction of these respective factors makes the capacity a fluid, dynamic property. Chapter 1 reviews the literature coming from multimodal integration research, as well as from unimodal topics that are pertinent to the factors that are being manipulated in the dissertation: namely, working memory, multiple object tracking, and attention. Chapter 2 considers the paradigmatic structure employed by the single study on audiovisual integration capacity and breaks down the component factors of proactive interference and temporal predictability, which contribute to the environmental complexity of the scenario, in the first illustration of the flexibility of capacity of audiovisual integration. Chapter 3 explores the effects of stimulus factors, considering the effects of crossmodal congruency and perceptual chunking on audiovisual integration capacity. Chapter 4 explores the variability of audiovisual integration capacity within an individual over time by means of a training study. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings of the research within, discusses some overarching themes with regard to audiovisual integration capacity including how information is processed through integration and how these findings could be applied to real-life scenarios, suggests some avenues for future research such as further manipulations of modality and SOA, and draws conclusions and answers to the research questions. This research extends what is known about audiovisual integration capacity, both in terms of its numerical value and the factors that play a role in its establishment. It also demonstrates that there is no overarching limitation on the capacity of audiovisual integration, as the initial paper on this topic suggests, but rather that it is a process subject to multiple factors, and can be changed depending on the situation in which integration is occurring.

Highlights

  • In Experiment 2, we reduced the amount of proactive interference, while maintaining the predictability of the critical stimulus

  • Successful model fit was confirmed by the low RMSEs observed in both the 200 ms stimulus onset-asynchronies (SOAs) and 700 ms SOA conditions

  • For the 200 ms condition, K was significantly less than 1 (0.658 [range 0.261 – 1.258]; t(18) = -4.85, p < .001), and for the 700 ms condition K was significantly greater than 1 (1.342 [range 0.317 – 2.562]; t(18) = 2.49, p = .023). This lends additional support to the finding from Experiment 1, that it is possible for the capacity of audiovisual integration to exceed 1 item

Read more

Summary

Methods

Method Informed consent was obtained from24 participants prior to experimentation. All participants were recruited from an undergraduate research participant pool, and were compensated with partial class credit. In the same vein as Sandhu and Dyson (2013), perhaps some element of one variable factor mitigates the negative effects of the other factor While this is strictly speculative at this point, and would merit testing more formally, it seems sensible that a reduction in proactive interference (and along with it, a reduction in number of non-critical presentations) may increase perceptual vigilance at the potentially critical trials when there is a temporally roving critical stimulus. In light of our findings, it is possible that our high proactive interference condition reduced the degree to which participants could attend to the changing of dots, and the degree to which they could remain vigilant for an extended period (with potential critical presentations on one of three switches rather than on one switch only) This maintenance of attention over a lengthy time span was not required in Experiment 1, when the critical stimulus always occurred on the same presentation of dots.

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call