High-coherence stimuli bind pre-attentively while low-coherence ones need attention.

Evidence

Experiment B shows that attentional mechanisms may intervene at the level of single audiovisual sources in an audiovisual speech scene, selectively increasing or decreasing the amount of fusion depending on the coherence of the attended source. Interestingly, attention intervened only for “Video sentences”. Our interpretation is that binding could be pre-attentive for syllables, because of their salient audiovisual comodulations making them pop out as strong bottom-up audiovisual primitives. In contrast, since the coherence of AV sentences is low, the attentional focus could enhance audiovisual top-down schemas increasing binding. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5137 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

Related

• Attention modulates audiovisual binding only for low-coherence stimuli, not salient ones (similarity 0.95)
• Audiovisual context coherence strengthens perceptual binding of speech syllables (similarity 0.95)
• Syllables have stronger audiovisual coherence than sentences, predicting greater binding. (similarity 0.94)
• Selective attention modulates fusion only for low-coherence video sentence contexts. (similarity 0.90)
• Voluntary attention modulates how audiovisual contexts affect subsequent fusion (similarity 0.89)
• Exposure to low-coherence audiovisual contexts reduces subsequent multisensory fusion (similarity 0.85)
• Temporal coherence of audiovisual signals predicts how strongly vision captures auditory perception. (similarity 0.85)
• Syllable speech binds audio and video more strongly than sentences do (similarity 0.85)
• Stronger temporal audiovisual coherence increases visual weight in binding (similarity 0.84)
• Temporal audiovisual coherence strength determines visual weighting in fusion. (similarity 0.83)
• Top-down instructional attention modulates audiovisual speech perception in unimpaired listeners (similarity 0.82)
• Audiovisual fusion is context-modulated, not automatic, and scales with audio-video coherence (similarity 0.81)
• A coherence index computed before fusion decides whether audiovisual inputs bind (similarity 0.81)
• Attentional focus instructions can be experimentally manipulated to shift audiovisual integration during speech perception. (similarity 0.81)
• Audiovisual speech fusion is not an automatic process but context-modulated. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Attention modulates audiovisual binding only for low-coherence stimuli, not salient ones #corroborates (0.92) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5137
• Selective attention modulates fusion only for low-coherence video sentence contexts. #corroborates (0.90)