cote interne IRCAM: Suied09bNone / NoneNational audienceAuditory-visual object recognition time suggests specific processing for animal sound

A Caramazza

A Martin

C Suied

Clara Suied

David C. Burr

EK Warrington

GA Rousselet

GW Humphreys

I Nelken

Isabelle Viaud-Delmon

J Miller

JL Armony

JW Lewis

K Patterson

K von Kriegstein

MM Murray

MS Lewicki

N Kanwisher

NC Singh

O Doehrmann

P Belin

PJ Laurienti

R Chocholle

R Ulrich

R VanRullen

S Clarke

S Molholm

S Thorpe

S Yuval-Greenberg

T Chi

PLoS ONE

English

PubMed

Crossref

Auditory-Visual Object Recognition Time Suggests Specific Processing for Animal Sounds

BACKGROUND: Recognizing an object requires binding together several cues, which may be distributed across different sensory modalities, and ignoring competing information originating from other objects. In addition, knowledge of the semantic category of an object is fundamental to determine how we should react to it. Here we investigate the role of semantic categories in the processing of auditory-visual objects. METHODOLOGY/FINDINGS: We used an auditory-visual object-recognition task (go/no-go paradigm). We compared recognition times for two categories: a biologically relevant one (animals) and a non-biologically relevant one (means of transport). Participants were asked to react as fast as possible to target objects, presented in the visual and/or the auditory modality, and to withhold their response for distractor objects. A first main finding was that, when participants were presented with unimodal or bimodal congruent stimuli (an image and a sound from the same object), similar reaction times were observed for all object categories. Thus, there was no advantage in the speed of recognition for biologically relevant compared to non-biologically relevant objects. A second finding was that, in the presence of a biologically relevant auditory distractor, the processing of a target object was slowed down, whether or not it was itself biologically relevant. It seems impossible to effectively ignore an animal sound, even when it is irrelevant to the task. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest a specific and mandatory processing of animal sounds, possibly due to phylogenetic memory and consistent with the idea that hearing is particularly efficient as an alerting sense. They also highlight the importance of taking into account the auditory modality when investigating the way object concepts of biologically relevant categories are stored and retrieved

Directory of Open Access Journals

Auditory-visual object recognition time suggests specific processing for animal sounds.

Background: Recognizing an object requires binding together several cues, which may be distributed across different sensory modalities, and ignoring competing information originating from other objects. In addition, knowledge of the semantic category of an object is fundamental to determine how we should react to it. Here we investigate the role of semantic categories in the processing of auditory-visual objects. Methodology/Findings: We used an auditory-visual object-recognition task (go/no-go paradigm). We compared recognition times for two categories: a biologically relevant one (animals) and a non-biologically relevant one (means of transport). Participants were asked to react as fast as possible to target objects, presented in the visual and/or the auditory modality, and to withhold their response for distractor objects. A first main finding was that, when participants were presented with unimodal or bimodal congruent stimuli (an image and a sound from the same object), similar reaction times were observed for all object categories. Thus, there was no advantage in the speed of recognition for biologically relevant compared to non-biologically relevant objects. A second finding was that, in the presence of a biologically relevant auditory distractor, the processing of a target object was slowed down, whether or not it was itself biologically relevant. It seems impossible to effectively ignore an animal sound, even when it is irrelevant to the task. Conclusions/Significance: These results suggest a specific and mandatory processing of animal sounds, possibly due t

Isabelle Viaud-delmon

CiteSeerX

Suied, Clara

Viaud-Delmon, Isabelle

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication

Auditory-visual object recognition time suggests specific processing for animal sounds

Recognizing an object requires binding together several cues, which may be distributed across different sensory modalities, and ignoring competing information originating from other objects. In addition, knowledge of the semantic category of an object is fundamental to determine how we should react to it. Here we investigate the role of semantic categories in the processing of auditory-visual objects.We used an auditory-visual object-recognition task (go/no-go paradigm). We compared recognition times for two categories: a biologically relevant one (animals) and a non-biologically relevant one (means of transport). Participants were asked to react as fast as possible to target objects, presented in the visual and/or the auditory modality, and to withhold their response for distractor objects. A first main finding was that, when participants were presented with unimodal or bimodal congruent stimuli (an image and a sound from the same object), similar reaction times were observed for all object categories. Thus, there was no advantage in the speed of recognition for biologically relevant compared to non-biologically relevant objects. A second finding was that, in the presence of a biologically relevant auditory distractor, the processing of a target object was slowed down, whether or not it was itself biologically relevant. It seems impossible to effectively ignore an animal sound, even when it is irrelevant to the task.These results suggest a specific and mandatory processing of animal sounds, possibly due to phylogenetic memory and consistent with the idea that hearing is particularly efficient as an alerting sense. They also highlight the importance of taking into account the auditory modality when investigating the way object concepts of biologically relevant categories are stored and retrieved

Suied Clara

Viaud-Delmon Isabelle

Public Library of Science (PLOS)

Auditory agnosia and auditory spatial deficits following left hemispheric lesions: Evidence for distinct processing pathways.

Category specific access dysphasia.

Category specific semantic impairments.

Distinct cortical pathways for processing tool versus animal sounds.

Divided attention: evidence for coactivation with redundant signals.

Efficient coding of natural sounds.

Evaluating warning sound urgency with reaction times.

Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: ‘category-specific’ neuropsychological deficits.

Human brain regions involved in recognizing environmental sounds.

Implicit multisensory associations influence voice recognition.

Integration of auditory and visual information in the recognition of realistic objects.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Ultrarapid visual categorisation of natural and artifactual objects.

Is it an animal? Is it a human face? Fast processing in upright and inverted natural scenes.

Modulation spectra of natural sounds and ethological theories of auditory processing.

Multisensory visual–auditory object recognition in humans: a high-density electrical mapping study.

Non-verbal auditory recognition in normal subjects and brain-damaged patients: evidence for parallel processing.

Processing of complex stimuli and natural scenes in the auditory cortex.

Rapid brain discrimination of sounds of objects.

Responses of auditory-cortex neurons to structural features of natural sounds.

Semantic congruence is a critical factor in multisensory behavioral performance.

Semantics and the multisensory brain: How meaning modulates processes of audio-visual integration.

Spectro-temporal modulation transfer functions and speech intelligibility.

Speed of processing in the human visual system.

Stimulus generalization of fear responses: effects of auditory cortex lesions in a computational model and in rats.

Testing the race model inequality: an algorithm and computer programs.

The dog’s meow: asymmetrical interaction in cross-modal object recognition. Exp Brain Res;In press.

The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception.

The organization of conceptual knowledge: the evidence from category-specific semantic deficits.

The representation of object concepts in the brain.

Timecourse of coactivation in bimodal divided attention.

Variations des temps de re ´action auditifs en fonction de l’intensite ´a ` diverses fre ´quences [Variation in auditory reaction time as a function of intensity at various frequencies]. L’Anne ´e

Voice-selective areas in human auditory cortex.

Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain.

http://www-sop.inria.fr/reves/Basilic/2009/PLos

Auditory-Visual Object Recognition Time Suggests Specific Processing for Animal Sounds

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Directory of Open Access Journals

CiteSeerX

Archive Ouverte en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication

Public Library of Science (PLOS)