ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (11): 1173-1188.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01173

• 研究报告 •    下一篇


唐晓雨1(), 佟佳庚1, 于宏1, 王爱君2()   

  1. 1辽宁师范大学心理学院; 辽宁省儿童青少年健康人格评定与培养协同创新中心, 大连 116029
    2苏州大学 心理学系, 心理与行为科学研究中心, 苏州 215123
  • 收稿日期:2021-01-08 发布日期:2021-09-23 出版日期:2021-11-25
  • 通讯作者: 唐晓雨,王爱君;
  • 基金资助:

Effects of endogenous spatial attention and exogenous spatial attention on multisensory integration

TANG Xiaoyu1(), TONG Jiageng1, YU Hong1, WANG Aijun2()   

  1. 1School of Psychology, Liaoning Collaborative Innovation Center of Children and Adolescents Healthy Personality Assessment and Cultivation, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China
    2Department of Psychology, Research Center for Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China
  • Received:2021-01-08 Online:2021-09-23 Published:2021-11-25
  • Contact: TANG Xiaoyu,WANG Aijun;


本文采用内-外源性空间线索靶子范式, 操控内源性线索有效性(有效线索、无效线索)、外源性线索有效性(有效线索、无效线索)、目标刺激类型(视觉刺激、听觉刺激、视听觉刺激)三个自变量。通过两个不同任务难度的实验(实验1: 简单定位任务; 实验2: 复杂辨别任务)来考察内外源性空间注意对多感觉整合的影响。两个实验结果均发现外源性空间注意显著减弱了多感觉整合效应, 内源性空间注意没有显著增强多感觉整合效应; 实验2中还发现了内源性空间注意会对外源性空间注意减弱多感觉整合效应产生影响。结果表明, 与内源性空间注意不同, 外源性空间注意对多感觉整合的影响不易受任务难度的调控; 当任务较难时内源性空间注意会影响外源性空间注意减弱多感觉整合效应的过程。由此推测, 内外源性空间注意对多感觉整合的调节并非彼此独立、而是相互影响的。

关键词: 内源性空间注意, 外源性空间注意, 多感觉整合, 内-外源性空间线索靶子范式, 任务难度


Attention effect has been greatly explored in multisensory integration. Previous studies found that endogenous spatial attention enhanced multisensory integration, while exogenous spatial attention decreased multisensory integration. However, there is no research integrates two kinds of spatial attention into the multisensory integration. In present study, we used endogenous-exogenous spatial cue target paradigm to investigate the effect of endogenous spatial attention and exogenous spatial attention on multisensory integration.
The present study consisted of 2 experiments. In these experiments, we mainly manipulated the endogenous cue validities (including cued, uncued), exogenous cue validities (including cued, uncued) and target modalities (including visual, auditory, and audiovisual modalities). Thirty-six students in Liaoning Normal University were recruited in Exp. 1. The visual (V) target was a white pentagonal asterisk block (2°×2°). The auditory (A) target was a 1 600 Hz sinusoidal tone presented by speakers. The audiovisual (AV) target was composed by the simultaneous presentation of both the visual and the auditory stimuli. At the beginning of each trial, the fixation stimulus was presented for 600~800 ms in the center of the monitor. Following the fixation stimulus, the endogenous cue was presented for 200 ms, which could predict (80%) the location of the target. Then a visual white square served as a exogenous cue was presented for 200 ms at the left or right location randomly. Before the target that appeared for 100 ms, the inter stimulus interval (ISI) lasted for 150 ms. The target (A, V, or AV) randomly appeared for 100 ms in the left or right locations. At last, the fixation stimuli appeared for 1000 ms to wait for the correspondence responses to targets. During the experiment, the participants were asked to locate targets by pressing buttons (F/J) as quickly and accurately as possible. Thirty-six college students were recruited in Exp. 2. In Exp. 2, visual stimuli included checkerboard squares (3.2°×3.2°) with gray (RGB: 147, 149, 152) in the middle and black (RGB: 0, 0, 0) in the middle; auditory stimuli included high-frequency sinusoidal tone (1400) and low-frequency sinusoidal tone (714). The visual target was one of the above two visual stimuli, and the auditory target was one of the above two auditory stimuli. The pairings of two single channel stimuli constituted audiovisual target. The Exp. 2 consisted of four audiovisual targets. Each set of audiovisual targets were balanced among the subjects.
The results showed that the responses to AV targets were faster than V or A targets, indicating the appearance of the bimodal advancement effect in both experiments. In addition, we found exogenous spatial attention’s race model (probability difference) showed significant smaller at cued compared to uncued condition in both experiments, while the endogenous spatial attention reduced the extent to which the exogenous spatial attention weakened the effect of multisensory integration in Exp.2, but not in Exp. 1. From the results of the relative amount of multisensory response enhancement (rMRE), In Exp. 1, the effects of endogenous spatial attention and exogenous spatial attention on multisensory integration were marginal significant. In Exp. 2, the two kinds of spatial attention had significant interaction with multisensory integration.
In summary, exogenous spatial attention decreased multisensory integration in both experiments. Endogenous spatial attention is involved in multisensory integration and has an impact on exogenous spatial attention in Exp. 2. The effects of endogenous spatial attention and exogenous spatial attention on multisensory integration in an interactive manner.

Key words: endogenous spatial attention, exogenous spatial attention, multisensory integration, endogenous- exogenous spatial cue target paradigm, task difficulty