Human sensory dominance

By F. Colavita. 1974

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review (2017, background): “Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 March 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 445 MacDonald, 1976), and the Colavita visual dominance effect (e.g., Colavita, 1974; Spence et al., 2011).”
Probing the Need for Visual Context in Multimodal Machine Translation (2019, positive): “This dominance effect corroborates the seminal work of Colavita (1974) in Psychophysics where it has been demonstrated that visual stimuli dominate over the auditory stimuli when humans are asked to perform a simple audiovisual discrimination task.”
When emotional valence modulates audiovisual integration (2012, unknown): “…data is compatible with previous results on the Colavita visual dominance effect: When performing an audiovisual detection task, humans tend to preferentially report the visual part of audiovisual stimuli, reflecting overall visual dominance (Colavita, 1974; see also Spence, 2009, for a review).”
The effect of synesthetic associations between the visual and auditory modalities on the Colavita effect (2015, background): “The current study replicated the Colavita visual dominance effect (Colavita 1974; Koppen and Spence 2007a, b, c; Koppen et al. 2008).”
Audiovisual multisensory integration (2007, background): “problem in responding to the auditory targets on the unimodal trials, they frequently fail to respond to them on the bimodal trials (see [44,45]).”
No effect of synesthetic congruency on temporal ventriloquism (2010, methodology): “The effect of semantic congruency was tested on the magnitude of the Colavita effect, an intersensory phenomenon in which participants typically fail to respond to an auditory component of bimodal targets (Colavita, 1974; Colavita, Tomko, & Weisberg, 1976).”
Semantic congruency and the Colavita visual dominance effect (2008, methodology): “…that other researchers have demonstrated signiWcant Colavita eVects even when participants respond signiWcantly more rapidly to the auditory stimuli than to the visual stimuli (e.g. Colavita 1974; Colavita et al. 1976; Colavita and Weisberg 1979; Koppen and Spence 2007a; Sinnett et al., 2007).”
When vision ‘extinguishes’ touch in neurologically-normal people: extending the Colavita visual dominance effect (2008, background): “The relative frequencies with which the various trial types were presented were the same as those reported in a number of previous studies (e.g., Egeth and Sager 1977; Koppen and Spence 2007a, b) and were also similar to those used by Colavita in his original research ( Colavita 1974; Colavita et a”
Interactions between the spatial and temporal stimulus factors that influence multisensory integration in human performance (2012, unknown): “Also, the finding of near-perfect modality detection rates at central locations with audiovisual stimuli presentations suggest that there was little, if any, Colavita effect, where the participants would misperceive the audiovisual presentation as visualonly (Colavita 1974).”