Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Shared attentional resources for processing visual and chemosensory information.

C Spence1, B Kettenmann, G Kobal

  • 1Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, UK. charles.spence@psy.ox.ac.uk

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology
|September 8, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Modelling Subarctic watershed dissolved organic carbon response to hydroclimatic regime.

The Science of the total environment·2022
Same author

Differences between endogenous attention to spatial locations and sensory modalities.

Experimental brain research·2017
Same author

The Development of Tactile Perception.

Advances in child development and behavior·2017
Same author

The Complex Interplay Between Multisensory Integration and Perceptual Awareness.

Multisensory research·2016
Same author

Visually Induced Inhibition of Return Affects the Integration of Auditory and Visual Information.

Perception·2016
Same author

Modulation of pain via expectation of its location.

European journal of pain (London, England)·2015
Same journal

Relations between emotion, illusory word perception, and orthographic repetition blindness: tests of binding theory.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology·2005
Same journal

Causal and noncausal conditionals: an integrated model of interpretation and reasoning.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology·2005
Same journal

Phonological similarity effects in verbal complex span.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology·2005
Same journal

By which name should I call thee? The consequences of having multiple names.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology·2005
Same journal

Stimulus similarity decrements in children's working memory span.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology·2005
Same journal

Lag-1 sparing in the attentional blink: benefits and costs of integrating two events into a single episode.

The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology·2005
See all related articles

This study reveals that our brains utilize shared attentional resources for processing both smell (chemosensory) and sight (visual) information. This finding suggests a unified system for sensory attention, challenging previous assumptions of separate processing channels.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Sensory Perception
  • Psychology

Background:

  • Historically, separate attentional resources were proposed for each sensory system.
  • Recent research indicates shared attentional resources across auditory, visual, and tactile stimuli.
  • The existence of shared resources for chemosensory processing remained largely unexplored.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether common attentional resources exist for processing chemosensory (olfactory) and visual stimuli.
  • To determine if attention can be flexibly allocated between different sensory modalities.

Main Methods:

  • Participants performed speeded footpedal discrimination tasks.
  • Unpredictable sequences of visual and chemosensory stimuli were presented.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Auditory cues directed attention to a specific modality (visual or chemosensory) on 80% of trials.

    • Main Results:

    • Response times were significantly faster when stimuli appeared in the cued (expected) modality compared to the uncued (unexpected) modality.
    • This modality effect suggests attention can be shared or flexibly allocated between visual and chemosensory inputs.

    Conclusions:

    • The findings support the existence of shared attentional resources for processing visual and chemosensory information.
    • This implies a more integrated model of attention, where resources are not strictly modality-specific.
    • Further research can explore the neural mechanisms underlying this cross-modal attentional sharing.