Sign in
NeuroscienceJournal of Neuroscience
Peer-reviewed journal article

Attention drives visual processing and audiovisual integration during multimodal communication

Noor SeijdeliD, Jan‐Mathijs SchoffeleniD, Peter Hagoort AiD, Linda DrijversiD

Abstract

During communication in real-life settings, our brain often needs to integrate auditory and visual information, and at the same time actively focus on the relevant sources of information, while ignoring interference from irrelevant events. The interaction between integration and attention processes remains poorly understood. Here, we use rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) to investigate how attention affects auditory and visual information processing and integration, during multimodal communication. We presented human participants (male and female) with videos of an actress uttering action verbs (auditory; tagged at 58 Hz) accompanied by two movie clips of hand gestures on both sides of fixation (attended stimulus tagged at 65 Hz; unattended stimulus tagged at 63 Hz). Integration difficulty was manipulated by a lower-order auditory factor (clear/degraded speech) and a higher-order visual semantic factor (matching/mismatching gesture). We observed an enhanced neural response to the attended visual information during degraded speech compared to clear speech. For the unattended information, the neural response to mismatching gestures was enhanced compared to matching gestures. Furthermore, signal power at the intermodulation frequencies of the frequency tags, indexing non-linear signal interactions, was enhanced in left frontotemporal and frontal regions. Focusing on LIFG, this enhancement was specific for the attended information, for those trials that benefitted from integration with a matching gesture. Higher power at this intermodulation frequency was related to faster reaction times. Together, our results suggest that attention modulates the strength and speed of audiovisual processing and interaction, depending on the congruence and quality of the sensory input.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
19
FWCI
6.92
Field percentile
top 3%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.