The multifaceted interplay between attention and multisensory integration

By Durk Talsma, D. Senkowski, Salvador Soto-Faraco, Marty G. Woldorff. 2010

839 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Multisensory integration has often been characterized as an automatic process. Recent findings suggest that multisensory integration can occur across various stages of stimulus processing that are linked to, and can be modulated by, attention. Stimulus-driven, bottom-up mechanisms induced by cross-modal interactions can automatically capture attention towards multisensory events, particularly when competition to focus elsewhere is relatively low. Conversely, top-down attention can facilitate the integration of multisensory inputs and lead to a spread of attention across sensory modalities. These findings point to a more intimate and multifaceted interplay between attention and multisensory integration than was previously thought. We review developments in our understanding of the interactions between attention and multisensory processing, and propose a framework that unifies previous, apparently discordant findings.

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

How researchers see this paper

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sensory Systems

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review (2017, background): “Attention has been taken to be a critical cognitive factor in modulating multisensory integration (see Figure 1; see Talsma et al., 2010, for a review).”
Contextual factors multiplex to control multisensory processes (2016, background): “More broadly, the current study sheds new light on the ongoing debate regarding the influence of top-down control on multisensory processes [De Meo et al., 2015; Murray et al., 2015; van Atteveldt et al., 2014; Talsma et al., 2010; ten Oever et al., unpublished data].”
Relationship between street scale and subjective assessment of audio-visual environment comfort based on 3D virtual reality and dual-channel acoustic tests (2018, background): “Other studies show t hat sensory stimulation can transfer from one individual to another [20-22].”
The Curious Incident of Attention in Multisensory Integration: Bottom-up vs. Top-down (2016, positive): “However, the salience of the stimuli also plays an important role in MSI, where salient stimuli are usually linked together while competitive stimuli require an attentional modulation (Talsma et al., 2010).”
Flexibility and Stability in Sensory Processing Revealed Using Visual-to-Auditory Sensory Substitution (2014, background): “…2006; Kayser 2010), by using different principles to determine the sensory preference and responses; for example, relying on the information conveyed by a stimulus instead of its modality (Pascual-Leone and Hamilton 2001), or using attention as an explaining mechanism (Talsma et al. 2010).”
The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing (2016, background): “Note: By “independence” we understand here independence of the occurrence of a particular multisensory process from top-down control 1 3 by Talsma et al. (2010) delineated the situations in which stimuli from different senses could interact independently of one’s current goals.”
Multisensory Causal Inference in the Brain (2015, background): “Attentional selection modulates multisensory integration, and multisensory coincidences attract attention and amplify perception [25].”