Auditory stimuli often facilitate visual perception. Audiovisual integration requires spatial and/or temporal proximity between visual and auditory stimuli; additionally, sensory processing speed affects the audiovisual integration process. In the present study we examined the relationship between processing speed and the auditory facilitation effect on visual representations by manipulating dot quantity patterns. We hypothesized that the auditory facilitation effect would be observed in longer interstimulus interval conditions with more dot quantities. This is because more processing time would be required to integrate visual and auditory stimuli. During a backward masking paradigm used in experiment 1, the auditory facilitation effect depended on dot quantity among patterns and the interval between visual stimuli and masks. Moreover, differences in processing time required to integrate visual and auditory stimuli between dot quantities was confirmed from a same-different discrimination task in experiment 2. Therefore, dot quantity affects sensory processing time, and a longer processing time is required for integrating visual and auditory stimuli when visual dot quantity is high.
AlaisD.NewellF. N.MamassianP. (2010). Multisensory processing in review: From physiology to behavior. Seeing and Perceiving, 23, 3–38.
2.
AlvarezG. A.CavanaghP. (2004). The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects. Psychological Science, 15, 106–111.
BologniniN.FrassinettiF.SerinoA.LadavasE. (2005). “Acoustical vision” of below threshold stimuli: Interaction among spatially converging audiovisual inputs. Experimental Brain Research, 160, 273–282.
5.
ChenY.-C.SpenceC. (2011). The crossmodal facilitation of visual object representations by sound: Evidence from the backward masking paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1784–1802.
6.
EnnsJ. T.Di LolloV, (2000). What's new in visual masking?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 345–352.
7.
FrassinettiF.BologniniN.LadavasE. (2002). Enhancement of visual perception by crossmodal visuo-auditory interaction. Experimental Brain Research, 147, 332–343.
8.
GarnerW. R.ClementD. E. (1963). Goodness of pattern and pattern uncertainty. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 446–452.
9.
GarnerW. R.SutliffD. (1974). The effect of goodness on encoding time in visual pattern discrimination. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 426–430.
10.
GrassiM.CascoC. (2009). Audiovisual bounce-inducing effect: Attention alone does not explain why the discs are bouncing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 35, 235–243.
11.
HoweE. S. (1980). Effects of partial symmetry, exposure time, and backward masking on judged goodness and reproduction of visual patterns. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 27–55.
12.
HoweE.JundK. (1986). Immediate memory span for two-dimensional spatial arrays: Effects of pattern symmetry and goodness. Acta Psychologica, 61, 37–51.
MarkovicS.GvozdenovicV. (2001). Symmetry, complexity and perceptual economy: Effects of minimum and maximum simplicity conditions. Visual Cognition, 8, 305–327.
16.
MeredithM. A.WallaceM. T.SteinB. E. (1992). Visual, auditory and somatosensory convergence in output neurons of the cat superior colliculus: Multisensory properties of the tecto-reticulospinal projection. Experimental Brain Research, 88, 181–186.
OyamaT.KikuchiT.IchiharaS. (1981). Span of attention, backward masking, and reaction time. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 106–112.
19.
RossL. A.Saint-AmourD.LeavittV. M.JavittD. C.FoxeJ. J. (2007). Do you see what I am saying? Exploring visual enhancement of speech comprehension in noisy environments. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1147–1153.
ShipleyT. (1964). Auditory flutter-driving of visual flicker. Science, 145, 1328–1330.
24.
SpenceC.NgoM. K. (2012). Does attention or multisensory integration explain the cross-modal facilitation of masked visual target identification. In BarryE. Stein (Ed.), The New Handbook of Multisensory Processing (pp. 345–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
SpencerT. J.ShuntichR. (1970). Evidence for an interruption theory of backward masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85, 198–203.
26.
SteinB. E.HuneycuttW. S.MeredithM. A. (1988). Neurons and behavior: The same rules of multisensory integration apply. Brain Research, 448, 355–358.
27.
SumbyW. H.PollackI. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26, 212–215.
28.
TakeshimaY.GyobaJ. (2013a). High-intensity sound increases the size of visually perceived objects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 501–507.
29.
TakeshimaY.GyobaJ. (2013b). Complexity of visual stimuli affects visual illusion induced by sound. Vision Research, 91, 1–7.
30.
Van der BurgE.OliversC. N. L.BronkhorstA. W.TheeuwesJ. (2008). Pip and pop: Non-spatial auditory signals improve spatial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1053–1065.
31.
VroomenJ.de GelderB. (2000). Sound enhances visual perception: Cross-modal effects of auditory organization on vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1583–1590.
32.
WadaY.KitagawaN.NoguchiK. (2003). Audio-visual integration in temporal perception. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 50, 117–124.
33.
WallaceM. T.MeredithM. A.SteinB. E. (1993). Multisensory integration in the superior colliculus of the alert cat. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80, 1006–1010.
34.
WatanabeK.ShimojoS. (1998). Attentional modulation in perception of visual motion events. Perception, 27, 1041–1054.
35.
WelchR. B.WarrenD. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638–667.
36.
Yuval-GreenbergS.DeouellL. Y. (2009). The dog's meow: Asymmetrical interaction in cross-modal object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 193, 603–614.
