MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024512411 · doi:10.1167/6.6.187

Effects of attention on face and voice processing

2010· article· en· W2024512411 on OpenAlexaff
Marianne Latinus, Margot J. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PsychologyPerceptionStimulus modalityModality (human–computer interaction)Cognitive psychologyAudiologyElectroencephalographySubliminal stimuliNeuroscienceComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multimodal perception has been previously investigated using simple stimuli such as pure tones and geometric forms or light flashes. It is generally found that presentation of bimodal stimuli improves behavioural performance, whether in detection, localisation or identification tasks. However, little is known about the multimodal integration of biologically relevant stimuli such as faces and voices. The purpose of this study was to determine the time-course of face and voice perception, depending on the attended modality. Nineteen subjects performed a gender categorisation on congruent or incongruent bimodal stimuli with attention directed to one or the other modality, i.e. to the faces or to the voices. ERPs were recorded concurrently. Behavioural data showed that gender categorisation was faster for faces than voices. Incongruent information in the unattended modality decreased accuracy and prolonged RTs compared to the congruent condition. ERPs were dominated by the response to the faces. Brain topography analyses showed a larger activity when attention was directed to faces around 100 ms after stimulus onset, equivalent to the P1 latency. However, the face-specific ERP component, N170, was not sensitive to the direction of attention. These data showed that directing attention to a particular sensory modality modulates early processing of visuo-auditory information, but not the N170. Further analyses will clarify the way in which attention affects the processing of bimodal stimuli. It is currently debated whether the N170 is sensitive to top-down effects or not. Based on these results, we suggest that neural mechanisms underlying the N170 are automatically recruited by faces.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207