skip to main content
10.1145/3532719.3543220acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Auditory Stimuli Degrade Visual Performance in Virtual Reality

Published:25 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

No abstract available.

References

  1. Souta Hidaka and Masakazu Ide. 2015. Sound can suppress visual perception. Scientific Reports 5(2015), 10483.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Souta Hidaka, Yosuke Suzuishi, Masakazu Ide, and Makoto Wada. 2018. Effects of spatial consistency and individual difference on touch-induced visual suppression effect. Scientific Reports 8, 1 (2018), 17018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Paul J Laurienti, Jonathan H Burdette, Mark T Wallace, Yi-Fen Yen, Aaron S Field, and Barry E Stein. 2002. Deactivation of sensory-specific cortex by cross-modal stimuli. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 14, 3 (2002), 420–429.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sandra Malpica, Ana Serrano, Diego Gutierrez, and Belen Masia. 2020. Auditory Stimuli Degrade Visual Performance In Virtual Reality. Scientific Reports (Nature Publishing Group) 10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69135-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Ethel Matin. 1974. Saccadic suppression: a review and an analysis.Psychological Bulletin 81, 12 (1974), 899.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Lotfi B Merabet, Jascha D Swisher, Stephanie A McMains, Mark A Halko, Amir Amedi, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, and David C Somers. 2007. Combined activation and deactivation of visual cortex during tactile sensory processing. Journal of neurophysiology 97, 2 (2007), 1633–1641.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jennifer L Mozolic, David Joyner, Christina E Hugenschmidt, Ann M Peiffer, Robert A Kraft, Joseph A Maldjian, and Paul J Laurienti. 2008. Cross-modal deactivations during modality-specific selective attention. BMC neurology 8, 1 (2008), 35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Charles Spence and Jon Driver. 1997. Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting. Perception & psychophysics 59, 1 (1997), 1–22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Charles Spence, Jae Lee, and Nathan Van der Stoep. 2017. Responding to sounds from unseen locations: Crossmodal attentional orienting in response to sounds presented from the rear. European Journal of Neuroscience 51, 5 (2017), 1137–1150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Manuel Teichert and Jürgen Bolz. 2018. How Senses Work Together: Cross-Modal Interactions between Primary Sensory Cortices. Neural Plasticity 2018(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Nathan Van der Stoep, Andrea Serino, Andrea Farnè, Massimiliano Di Luca, and Charles Spence. 2016. Depth: The forgotten dimension in multisensory research. Multisensory Research 29, 6-7 (2016), 493–524.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Frances C Volkmann, Lorrin A Riggs, and Robert K Moore. 1980. Eyeblinks and visual suppression. Science 207, 4433 (1980), 900–902.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGGRAPH '22: ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 Posters
    July 2022
    132 pages
    ISBN:9781450393614
    DOI:10.1145/3532719

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 25 July 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • poster
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,822of8,601submissions,21%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)79
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format