Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:06:56.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual-somatosensory integration in aging: Does stimulus location really matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2014

JEANNETTE R. MAHONEY ,
CUILING WANG ,
KRISTINA DUMAS  and
ROEE HOLTZER
JEANNETTE R. MAHONEY*
Affiliation:
The Department of Neurology, Division of Cognitive & Motor Aging, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
CUILING WANG
Affiliation:
The Department of Neurology, Division of Cognitive & Motor Aging, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
KRISTINA DUMAS
Affiliation:
Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
ROEE HOLTZER
Affiliation:
The Department of Neurology, Division of Cognitive & Motor Aging, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Individuals are constantly bombarded by sensory stimuli across multiple modalities that must be integrated efficiently. Multisensory integration (MSI) is said to be governed by stimulus properties including space, time, and magnitude. While there is a paucity of research detailing MSI in aging, we have demonstrated that older adults reveal the greatest reaction time (RT) benefit when presented with simultaneous visual-somatosensory (VS) stimuli. To our knowledge, the differential RT benefit of visual and somatosensory stimuli presented within and across spatial hemifields has not been investigated in aging. Eighteen older adults (Mean = 74 years; 11 female), who were determined to be non-demented and without medical or psychiatric conditions that may affect their performance, participated in this study. Participants received eight randomly presented stimulus conditions (four unisensory and four multisensory) and were instructed to make speeded foot-pedal responses as soon as they detected any stimulation, regardless of stimulus type and location of unisensory inputs. Results from a linear mixed effect model, adjusted for speed of processing and other covariates, revealed that RTs to all multisensory pairings were significantly faster than those elicited to averaged constituent unisensory conditions (p < 0.01). Similarly, race model violation did not differ based on unisensory spatial location (p = 0.41). In summary, older adults demonstrate significant VS multisensory RT effects to stimuli both within and across spatial hemifields.

Keywords

Multisensory integrationSensory processingAgingSpatial rule
Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 275 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, A.T., Epstein, N., Brown, G. & Steer, R.A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology 56, 893–897.Google Scholar
Buschke, H., Kuslansky, G., Katz, M., Stewart, W.F., Sliwinski, M.J., Eckholdt, H.M. & Lipton, R.B. (1999). Screening for dementia with the memory impairment screen. Neurology 52, 231–238.Google Scholar
Colonius, H. & Diederich, A. (2006). The race model inequality: Interpreting a geometric measure of the amount of violation. Psychological Review 113, 148–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diederich, A. & Colonius, H. (2004). Bimodal and trimodal multisensory enhancement: Effects of stimulus onset and intensity on reaction time. Perception and Psychophysics 66, 1388–1404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksen, C.W., Goettl, B., St James, J.D. & Fournier, L.R. (1989). Processing redundant signals: Coactivation, divided attention, or what?. Perception and Psychophysics 45, 356–370.Google Scholar
Fort, A., Delpuech, C., Pernier, J. & Giard, M.H. (2002). Early auditory-visual interactions in human cortex during nonredundant target identification. Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research 14, 20–30.Google Scholar
Foxe, J.J., Wylie, G.R., Martinez, A., Schroeder, C.E., Javitt, D.C., Guilfoyle, D., Ritter, W. & Murray, M.M. (2002). Auditory-somatosensory multisensory processing in auditory association cortex: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurophysiology 88, 540–543.Google Scholar
Freiherr, J., Lundström, J.N., Habel, U. & Reetz, K. (2013). Multisensory integration mechanisms during aging. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7, 863.Google Scholar
Galvin, J.E., Roe, C.M., Powlishta, K.K., Coats, M.A., Muich, S.J., Grant, E., Miller, J.P., Storandt, M. & Morris, J.C. (2005). The AD8: A brief informant interview to detect dementia. Neurology 65, 559–564.Google Scholar
Galvin, J.E., Roe, C.M., Xiong, C. & Morris, J.C. (2006). Validity and reliability of the AD8 informant interview in dementia. Neurology 67, 1942–1948.Google Scholar
Giard, M.H. & Peronnet, F. (1999). Auditory-visual integration during multimodal object recognition in humans: A behavioral and electrophysiological study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gondan, M., Lange, K., Rosler, F. & Roder, B. (2004). The redundant target effect is affected by modality switch costs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11, 307–313.Google Scholar
Harrington, L.K. & Peck, C.K. (1998). Spatial disparity affects visual-auditory interactions in human sensorimotor processing. Experimental Brain Research 122, 247–252.Google Scholar
Holmes, N.P. (2007). The law of inverse effectiveness in neurons and behaviour: Multisensory integration versus normal variability. Neuropsychologia 45, 3340–3345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtzer, R., Friedman, R., Lipton, R.B., Katz, M., Xue, X. & Verghese, J. (2007). The relationship between specific cognitive functions and falls in aging. Neuropsychology 21, 540–548.Google Scholar
Holtzer, R., Verghese, J., Wang, C., Hall, C.B. & Lipton, R.B. (2008). Within-person across-neuropsychological test variability and incident dementia. The Journal of the American Medical Association 300, 823–830.Google Scholar
Holtzer, R., Verghese, J., Xue, X. & Lipton, R.B. (2006). Cognitive processes related to gait velocity: Results from the Einstein Aging study. Neuropsychology 20, 215–223.Google Scholar
Holtzer, R., Wang, C. & Verghese, J. (2014). Performance variance on walking while talking tasks: Theory, findings, and clinical implications. Age (Dordrecht) 36, 373–81.Google Scholar
Hugenschmidt, C.E., Mozolic, J.L. & Laurienti, P.J. (2009). Suppression of multisensory integration by modality-specific attention in aging. Neuroreport 20, 349–353.Google Scholar
Kinchla, R. (1974). Detecting target elements in multielement arrays: A confusability model. Perception and Psychophysics 15, 149–158.Google Scholar
Laird, N.M. & Ware, J.H. (1982). Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 38, 963–974.Google Scholar
Laurienti, P.J., Burdette, J.H., Maldjian, J.A. & Wallace, M.T. (2006). Enhanced multisensory integration in older adults. Neurobiology of Aging 27, 1155–1163.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J.R., Li, P.C., Oh-Park, M., Verghese, J. & Holtzer, R. (2011). Multisensory integration across the senses in young and old adults. Brain Research 1426, 43–53.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J.R., Verghese, J., Dumas, K., Wang, C. & Holtzer, R. (2012). The effect of multisensory cues on attention in aging. Brain Research 1472, 63–73.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J.R., Verghese, J., Goldin, Y., Lipton, R. & Holtzer, R. (2010). Alerting, orienting, and executive attention in older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 16, 877–889.Google Scholar
Masur, D.M., Sliwinski, M., Lipton, R.B., Blau, A.D. & Crystal, H.A. (1994). Neuropsychological prediction of dementia and the absence of dementia in healthy elderly persons. Neurology 44, 1427–1432.Google Scholar
Meredith, M.A., Nemitz, J.W. & Stein, B.E. (1987). Determinants of multisensory integration in superior colliculus neurons. I. Temporal factors. The Journal of Neuroscience 7, 3215–3229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, M.A. & Stein, B.E. (1986). Visual, auditory, and somatosensory convergence on cells in superior colliculus results in multisensory integration. Journal of Neurophysiology 56, 640–662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meredith, M.A. & Stein, B.E. (1996). Spatial determinants of multisensory integration in cat superior colliculus neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology 75, 1843–1857.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology 14, 247–279.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1986). Timecourse of coactivation in bimodal divided attention. Perception and Psychophysics 40, 331–343.Google Scholar
Molholm, S., Ritter, W., Murray, M.M., Javitt, D.C., Schroeder, C.E. & Foxe, J.J. (2002). Multisensory auditory-visual interactions during early sensory processing in humans: A high-density electrical mapping study. Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research 14, 115–128.Google Scholar
Mordkoff, J.T. & Yantis, S. (1991). An interactive race model of divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance 17, 520–538.Google Scholar
Murray, M.M., Molholm, S., Michel, C.M., Heslenfeld, D.J., Ritter, W., Javitt, D.C., Schroeder, C.E. & Foxe, J.J. (2005). Grabbing your ear: rapid auditory-somatosensory multisensory interactions in low-level sensory cortices are not constrained by stimulus alignment. Cerebral Cortex 15, 963–974.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9, 97–113.Google Scholar
Otto, T.U., Dassy, B. & Mamassian, P. (2013). Principles of multisensory behavior. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 7463–74.Google Scholar
Otto, T.U. & Mamassian, P. (2012). Noise and correlations in parallel perceptual decision making. Current Biology 22, 1391–1396.Google Scholar
Pavani, F., Spence, C. & Driver, J. (2000). Visual capture of touch: Out-of-the-body experiences with rubber gloves. Psychological Science 11, 353–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peiffer, A.M., Mozolic, J.L., Hugenschmidt, C.E. & Laurienti, P.J. (2007). Age-related multisensory enhancement in a simple audiovisual detection task. Neuroreport 18, 1077–1081.Google Scholar
Ross, L.A., Saint-Amour, D., Leavitt, V.M., Javitt, D.C. & Foxe, J.J. (2007). Do you see what I am saying? exploring visual enhancement of speech comprehension in noisy environments. Cerebral Cortex 17, 1147–1153.Google Scholar
Salthouse, T.A. (1985). Speed of Behavior and its Implication for Cognition in Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, ed. Birren, J.E. & Schaie, K.W., pp. 400–426. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.Google Scholar
Schurmann, M., Kolev, V., Menzel, K. & Yordanova, J. (2002). Spatial coincidence modulates interaction between visual and somatosensory evoked potentials. Neuroreport 13, 779–783.Google Scholar
Sliwinski, M., Buschke, H., Stewart, W.F., Masur, D. & Lipton, R.B. (1997). The effect of dementia risk factors on comparative and diagnostic selective reminding norms. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 3, 317–326.Google Scholar
Stein, B.E., Huneycutt, W.S. & Meredith, M.A. (1988). Neurons and behavior: The same rules of multisensory integration apply. Brain Research 448, 355–358.Google Scholar
Stein, B.E., Magalhaes-Castro, B. & Kruger, L. (1975). Superior colliculus: Visuotopic-somatotopic overlap. Science 189, 224–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stein, B.E. & Meredith, M.A. (1990). Multisensory integration. Neural and behavioral solutions for dealing with stimuli from different sensory modalities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 608, 51–65; discussion, 65–70.Google Scholar
Stein, B.E., Meredith, M.A. (1993). The Merging of the Senses. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stein, B.E. & Wallace, M.T. (1996). Comparisons of cross-modality integration in midbrain and cortex. Progress in Brain Research, 112, 289–99.Google Scholar
Stephen, J.M., Knoefel, J.E., Adair, J., Hart, B. & Aine, C.J. (2010). Aging-related changes in auditory and visual integration measured with MEG. Neuroscience Letters 484, 76–80.Google Scholar
Stern, Y., Habeck, C., Moeller, J., Scarmeas, N., Anderson, K.E., Hilton, H.J., Flynn, J., Sackeim, H. & van Heertum, R. (2005). Brain networks associated with cognitive reserve in healthy young and old adults. Cerebral Cortex 15, 394–402.Google Scholar
Teder-Sälejärvi, W.A., Di Russo, F., McDonald, J.J. & Hillyard, S.A. (2005). Effects of spatial congruity on audio-visual multimodal integration. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17, 1396–1409.Google Scholar
Verghese, J., Wang, C., Lipton, R.B., Holtzer, R. & Xue, X. (2007). Quantitative gait dysfunction and risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry 78, 929–935.Google Scholar
Wallace, M.T., Wilkinson, L.K. & Stein, B.E. (1996). Representation and integration of multiple sensory inputs in primate superior colliculus. Journal of Neurophysiology 76, 1246–1266.Google Scholar
Yesavage, J.A., Brink, T.L., Rose, T.L., Lum, O., Huang, V., Adey, M. & Leirer, V.O. (1982). Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychiatric Research 17, 37–49.Google Scholar