Bedford Felice L
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Perception. 2007;36(4):508-15. doi: 10.1068/p5632.
A cross-modal conflict over location was resolved in an unexpected way. When vision and proprioception provide conflicting information, which modality should dominate is ambiguous. A visual-proprioceptive conflict was created with a prism and, to logically disambiguate the problem, auditory information was added that either agreed with vision (group 1), agreed with proprioception (group 2), or was absent (group 3). While a scarcity of research addresses the interaction of three modalities, I predicted error should be attributed to the modality in the minority. Instead, the opposite was found: adaptation consisted of a large change in arm proprioception and a small change affecting vision in group 2, and the reverse in group 1. Group 1 was not different than group 3. Findings suggested adaptation to separate two-way conflicts, possibly influenced by direction of attention, rather than a direct solution to a three-way modality problem.
一种关于位置的跨模态冲突以一种意想不到的方式得到了解决。当视觉和本体感觉提供相互冲突的信息时，哪种模态应占主导地位并不明确。通过一个棱镜制造了视觉 - 本体感觉冲突，并且为了从逻辑上消除歧义问题，添加了与视觉一致（第1组）、与本体感觉一致（第2组）或不存在（第3组）的听觉信息。虽然很少有研究涉及三种模态的相互作用，但我预测误差应归因于占少数的模态。相反，结果发现：在第2组中，适应包括手臂本体感觉的大幅变化和影响视觉的小幅变化，而在第1组中情况相反。第1组与第3组没有差异。研究结果表明，适应是为了区分两种双向冲突，可能受注意力方向的影响，而不是直接解决三模态问题。
