Semantic congruence is a critical factor in multisensory behavioral performance

By Paul J. Laurienti, Robert A. Kraft, Joseph A. Maldjian, Jonathan H. Burdette, Mark T. Wallace. 2004

321 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sensory Systems

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sensory Systems

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review (2017, background): “Specifically, reaction times on the bimodally congruent trials were significantly faster than on the bimodally incongruent trials, a result that can perhaps best be explained in terms of the effect of semantic congruency on the redundant targets effect (see Miller, 1991; Laurienti et al., 2004).”
Responses of Prefrontal Multisensory Neurons to Mismatching Faces and Vocalizations (2014, background): “Congruent multisensory information enhances stimulus perception (Meredith and Stein, 1983; Laurienti et al., 2004; Shams and Seitz, 2008), whereas mismatching or incongruent multisensory information can alter our perception, as exemplified by the McGurk effect (McGurk and MacDonald, 1976).”
Semantic congruency and the Colavita visual dominance effect (2008, background): “This result might be explained (in the same way as the results of Laurienti et al. 2004 and Molholm et al. 2004) in terms of a redundancy gain eVect (cf. Miller 1982).”
The co-occurrence of multisensory facilitation and cross-modal conflict in the human brain. (2011, unknown): “Similar to previous behavioral findings (cf., Laurienti et al. 2003, 2004; Noppeney et al. 2008), even after incorrect trials were excluded, RTs to congruent presentations continued to be significantly faster than RTs to incongruent presentations.”
Audiovisual multisensory integration (2007, methodology): “, [9]), as well as on more cognitive factors, such as whether the stimuli are semantically congruent or not [10,11],”
Object Familiarity and Semantic Congruency Modulate Responses in Cortical Audiovisual Integration Areas (2007, background): “Laurienti et al. (2004) have shown that semantically congruent, but not incongruent AV combinations result in a behavioral performance enhancement.”
Modality-specific selective attention attenuates multisensory integration (2007, background): “Indeed, the presence of nonmatching stimuli in two modalities can cause distraction and impair task performance (Rees et al. 2001; Laurienti et al. 2004).”
The effect of synesthetic associations between the visual and auditory modalities on the Colavita effect (2015, background): “…congruency, as found in naturalistic stimuli (de Gelder and Bertelson 2003), might help us to decide whether inputs from different senses belong to the same event (Bertelson 1999; de Gelder 2000; Dolan et al. 2001; Laurienti et al. 2004; Stekelenburg and Vroomen 2007; Noppeney et al. 2008).”
How prior expectations shape multisensory perception (2016, background): “…bottom-up congruency cues in shaping multisensory integration (Bonath et al., 2014; Cappe et al., 2012; Hein et al., 2007; Körding et al., 2007; Laurienti et al., 2004; Lee and Noppeney, 2014, 2011; Lewis and Noppeney, 2010; Magnotti et al., 2013; Munhall et al., 1996; Stevenson et al., 2012;…”
No effect of synesthetic congruency on temporal ventriloquism (2010, background): “For example, Parise and Spence (2009) demonstrated pitch–size congruency effects using noncomplex stimuli, and also several other studies have reported congruency effects using rather simple stimuli such as flashes and beeps ( Laurienti, Kraft, Maldjian, Burdette, & Wallace, 2004; Spence, Baddeley,”
Crossmodal binding: Evaluating the “unity assumption” using audiovisual speech stimuli (2007, background): “... as whether or not the participant assumes that the stimuli should “go together.” This is the so-called “unity assumption,” the assumption that a perceiver makes about whether he or she is observing a single multisensory event rather than multiple separate unimodal events—a decision that is made,”
The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing (2016, background): “Unisensory stimuli with redundant attributes show no similar response benefits (e.g. Laurienti et al. 2004).”
The role of multisensory memories in unisensory object discrimination. (2005, background): “Some have shown that brain responses modulate in strength as a function of such semantic congruence [2,4,12,13,16].”
Preattentive processing of audio-visual emotional signals. (2011, unknown): “Thus, meaning as a supramodal feature seems to play a critical role in multisensory interactions (Laurienti, Kraft, Maldjian, Burdette, & Wallace, 2004).”