Shifting attention between modalities: Revisiting the modality-shift effect in autism

Selective attention to a sensory modality has been observed experimentally in studies of the modality-shift effect – a relative performance benefit for targets preceded by a target in the same modality, compared to a different modality. Differences in selective attention are commonly observed in autism and we investigated whether exogenous (automatic) shift costs between modalities are increased. Autistic adults and neurotypical controls made speeded discrimination responses to simple visual, tactile and auditory targets. Shift costs were observed for each target modality in participant response times and were largest for auditory targets, reflective of fast responses on auditory repeat trials. Critically, shift costs were similar between the groups. However, integrating speed and accuracy data using drift-diffusion modelling revealed that shift costs in drift rates (reflecting the quality of information extracted from the stimulus) were reduced for autistic participants compared with neurotypicals. It may be that, unlike neurotypicals, there is little difference between attention within and between sensory modalities for autistic people. This finding also highlights the benefit of combining reaction time and accuracy data using decision models to better characterise selective attention in autism.

Crossmodal Nonspatial Repetition Inhibition Due to Modality Shift

Previous studies have found that processing of a second stimulus is slower when the modality of the first stimulus differs, which is termed the modality shift effect. Moreover, people tend to respond more slowly to the second stimulus when the two stimuli are similar in the semantic dimension, which is termed the nonspatial repetition inhibition effect. This study aimed to explore the modality shift effect on nonspatial repetition inhibition and whether such modulation was influenced by different temporal intervals. A cue–target paradigm was adopted in which modality priming and identity priming were manipulated at three interstimuli intervals. The results showed that the response times under the modality shift condition were slower than those under the modality repeat condition. In trials with modality shift, responses to congruent cues and targets were slower than to incongruent cue–target combinations, indicating crossmodal nonspatial repetition inhibition. The crossmodal nonspatial repetition inhibition effect decreased with increasing interstimuli interval. These results provide evidence that the additional intervening event proposed in previous studies is not necessary for the occurrence of crossmodal nonspatial repetition inhibition.

The pragmatics of discovery constrains children’s tendency to map novel labels onto novel objects

When taught a label for an object, and later asked whether that object or a novel object is the referent of a novel label, preschoolers favor the novel object. This article examines whether this so-called disambiguation effect may be undermined by an expectation to communicate about a discovery. This expectation may explain why 4-year-olds do not show the disambiguation effect if a sense modality shift occurs between training and test. In Study 1, 3- and 4-year-olds learned a label for a visible object, then examined two hidden objects manually and predicted which one they would be asked about. Only the older group predicted that they would be asked about the object that matched the visible object. Study 1 also included a test of the standard disambiguation effect, where both the training and test objects were visible. Both 3- and 4-year-olds showed a weaker disambiguation effect in this test when the matching object was unexpected rather than expected. In Study 2, both age groups predicted they would be asked about this object when it was unexpected. In Study 3, both age groups showed a stronger disambiguation effect when allowed to communicate about this object before deciding which object was the referent of a novel label. Metacognitive ability predicted the strength of this disambiguation effect even after controlling for age and inhibitory control. The article discusses various explanations for why only 4-year-olds abided by the pragmatics of discovery in the test of the cross-modal disambiguation effect, but both 3- and 4-year-olds abided by it in the test of the standard disambiguation effect.

Modality shift in design process : understanding the rationale behind modality shift and its effect on architectural design

Architectural design is a deliberate act of creativity without any definite starting point. Critical analysis of any design process reveals its basic stages. Designers use a number of design and drafting tools as well as their media (modality) to perform these processes. In search of an effective solution, designers often tend to switch between modalities. The purpose of this study is to understand how design students rationalize their modality selection and factors causing modality shifts as well as the impact of these shifts on the design outcome. This study examined different externalization forms of design ideas; identified any deviation from initial design ideas that occurred due to modality shift; analyzed final design outcomes by comparing initial ideas and its follow-through on the basis of their visualization and representation; and finally, looked into correlations between the modality shift and the design outcome. Observation and analysis revealed that students tend to shift between modalities not necessarily for facilitating problem solving only. Individual styles, instructions, requirements, context, culture, competency, ambiguity and cognitive aspects also play a significant role. It was also evident that the amplitude of shift has a positive correlation with designers' experience and accordingly impact on the final design outcome. The result of this study would help to identify reasons and effects of modality shift in design process and thus benefit design pedagogy and practice. By developing effective design methods and processes through meaningful incorporation of traditional and technologically advanced tools, students of the digital age would benefit and enhance their design perception and decision-making.

The Anterior N1 Component as an Index of Modality Shifting

Processing of a given target is facilitated when it is defined within the same (e.g., visual–visual), compared to a different (e.g., tactile–visual), perceptual modality as on the previous trial [Spence, C., Nicholls, M., & Driver, J. The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 330–336, 2001]. The present study was designed to identify electrocortical (EEG) correlates underlying this “modality shift effect.” Participants had to discriminate (via foot pedal responses) the modality of the target stimulus, visual versus tactile (Experiment 1), or respond based on the target-defining features (Experiment 2). Thus, modality changes were associated with response changes in Experiment 1, but dissociated in Experiment 2. Both experiments confirmed previous behavioral findings with slower discrimination times for modality change, relative to repetition, trials. Independently of the target-defining modality, spatial stimulus characteristics, and the motor response, this effect was mirrored by enhanced amplitudes of the anterior N1 component. These findings are explained in terms of a generalized “modality-weighting” account, which extends the “dimension-weighting” account proposed by Found and Müller [Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 88–101, 1996] for the visual modality. On this account, the anterior N1 enhancement is assumed to reflect the detection of a modality change and initiation of the readjustment of attentional weight-setting from the old to the new target-defining modality in order to optimize target detection.