In particular, because of the discussed artefact introduced by th

In particular, because of the discussed artefact introduced by the increasing Selleckchem Small molecule library hazard rate throughout the trial, Lange and Röder did not analyse the late time intervals whereas in our experiment the decoupling between modalities in time was

more evident, specifically at later intervals. According to the possible time course of temporal expectation and attention to modality, discussed above, one could think that Lange and Röder might have limited their focus of enquiry to an initial stage of the process whereby an early attention shift selects for time but not modality. This fits well with the fact that Lange and Röder used shorter intervals (600 or 1200 ms) after trial onset whereas we used longer ones, which might have given the participant even more time to fully orient their attention to time as well as modality. This would explain www.selleckchem.com/products/sotrastaurin-aeb071.html why the secondary modality followed a synergistic pattern in the first interval for Lange and Röder (600 ms) and started to level off in our first interval (1000 ms) with

no particular advantage or disadvantage. It would also explain the more evident modality selectivity found in our study in the second interval (2500 ms). There are some other differences between the experiment of Lange & Röder (2006) and our experiment, which may underlie their disparate outcomes, though it is less clear how. For example, Lange and Röder used auditory and tactile stimuli whereas we used visual and tactile stimuli. It is therefore a possibility that different attention Sclareol links between different pairs of modalities follow different rules (see Driver & Spence, 1998b; Spence & McDonald, 2004, for an example relating to cross-modal exogenous attention). In addition, Lange and Röder used a tactile warning to signal the start of each trial, a modality which was also used as one of their target modalities in the task. This may have influenced the resulting tuning of attention to a modality, so that when the visual modality was primary, participants

still had to attend to touch to be aware of trial initiation and then quickly switch to vision. For this reason, we used an auditory tone as trial onset warning, which was an orthogonal marker to minimize modality biases. A relevant outcome of the present study is that it points to a basic feature of temporal attention which would reveal a fundamental distinction between attention to time and attention to space. Whilst, according to many previous demonstrations, spatial attention tends to affect attended and unattended sensory modalities in a synergistic manner, this is not necessarily the case for temporal attention. Instead, selection in time seems to tune benefits of attended stimuli at their most likely temporal onset.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>