Spatial coincidence modulates the Colavita visual dominance effect.

44 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review (2017, background): “Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 March 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 445 Koppen and Spence (2007a) manipulated the SOA between the visual and auditory targets on the bimodal trials.”
The effect of synesthetic associations between the visual and auditory modalities on the Colavita effect (2015, background): “As observed in other studies (Koppen and Spence 2007b; Koppen et al. 2008), more errors were made to visual-only stimuli (small stimulus: 4.7 % auditory and 6.8 % audiovisual responses; large stimulus: 1 3 2.9 % auditory and 5.8 % audiovisual responses) than to auditory-only stimuli (high-pitched…”
When vision ‘extinguishes’ touch in neurologically-normal people: extending the Colavita visual dominance effect (2008, methodology): “…Colavita eVect reported here (15.6% visual-only and 5.2% tactile-only responses, a 10.4% Colavita eVect) was similar to that reported by Koppen and Spence (2007a) in their study of the visual dominance over audition (12.1% visual-only and 4.4% auditoryonly responses, producing a 7.7%…”
Semantic congruency and the Colavita visual dominance effect (2008, methodology): “A larger Colavita eVect has also been reported when the auditory and visual stimuli are presented from the same spatial location rather than from diVerent locations (see Koppen and Spence 2007b).”