↓ Skip to main content

Spatial and frequency specificity of the ventriloquism aftereffect revisited

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Spatial and frequency specificity of the ventriloquism aftereffect revisited
Published in
Psychological Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00426-017-0965-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Bruns, Brigitte Röder

Abstract

Exposure to audiovisual stimuli with a consistent spatial misalignment seems to result in a recalibration of unisensory auditory spatial representations. The previous studies have suggested that this so-called ventriloquism aftereffect is confined to the trained region of space, but yielded inconsistent results as to whether or not recalibration generalizes to untrained sound frequencies. Here, we reassessed the spatial and frequency specificity of the ventriloquism aftereffect by testing whether auditory spatial perception can be independently recalibrated for two different sound frequencies and/or at two different spatial locations. Recalibration was confined to locations within the trained hemifield, suggesting that spatial representations were independently adjusted for the two hemifields. The frequency specificity of the ventriloquism aftereffect depended on the presence or the absence of conflicting audiovisual adaptation stimuli within the same hemifield. Moreover, adaptation of two different sound frequencies in opposite directions (leftward vs. rightward) resulted in a selective suppression of leftward recalibration, even when the adapting stimuli were presented in different hemifields. Thus, instead of representing a fixed stimulus-driven process, cross-modal recalibration seems to critically depend on the sensory context and takes into account inconsistencies in the cross-modal input.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 40%
Researcher 3 20%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Master 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 47%
Neuroscience 5 33%
Unspecified 1 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#9,879,342
of 12,376,381 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#437
of 585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,541
of 351,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#19
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,376,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,162 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.