The law of prior entry was one of E.B. Titchener’s seven fundamental laws of attention. According to Titchener : “the object of attention comes to consciousness more quickly than the objects which we are not attending to.” Although researchers have been studying prior entry for more than a century now, progress in understanding the effect has been hindered by the many methodological confounds present in early research. As a consequence, it is unclear whether the behavioral effects reported in the majority (...) of published studies in this area should be attributed to attention, decisional response biases, and/or, in the case of exogenous spatial cuing studies of the prior-entry effect, to sensory facilitation effects instead. In this article, the literature on the prior-entry effect is reviewed, the confounds present in previous research highlighted, current consensus summarized, and some of the key questions for future research outlined. In particular, recent research has now provided compelling psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence to support the claim that attending to a sensory modality, spatial location, or stimulus feature/attribute can all give rise to a relative speeding-up of the time of arrival of attended, as compared to relatively less attended stimuli. Prior-entry effects have now been demonstrated following both the endogenous and exogenous orienting of attention, though prior-entry effects tend to be smaller in magnitude when assessed by means of participants’ performance on SJ tasks than when assessed by means of their performance on TOJ tasks. (shrink)

Previous research with speech and non-speech stimuli suggested that in audiovisual perception, visual information starting prior to the onset of corresponding sound can provide visual cues, and form a prediction about the upcoming auditory sound. This prediction leads to audiovisual interaction. Auditory and visual perception interact and induce suppression and speeding up of the early auditory event-related potentials such as N1 and P2. To investigate AV interaction, previous research examined N1 and P2 amplitudes and latencies in response to audio only, (...) video only, audiovisual, and control stimuli, and compared AV with auditory perception based on four AV interaction models. The current study addresses how different models of AV interaction express N1 and P2 suppression in music perception. Furthermore, the current study took one step further and examined whether previous musical experience, which can potentially lead to higher N1 and P2 amplitudes in auditory perception, influenced AV interaction in different models. Musicians and non-musicians were presented the recordings of a keyboard /C4/ key being played, as well as CO stimuli. Results showed that AV interaction models differ in their expression of N1 and P2 amplitude and latency suppression. The calculation of model and has consequences for the resulting N1 and P2 difference waves. Furthermore, while musicians, compared to non-musicians, showed higher N1 amplitude in auditory perception, suppression of amplitudes and latencies for N1 and P2 was similar for the two groups across the AV models. Collectively, these results suggest that when visual cues from finger and hand movements predict the upcoming sound in AV music perception, suppression of early ERPs is similar for musicians and non-musicians. Notably, the calculation differences across models do not lead to the same pattern of results for N1 and P2, demonstrating that the four models are not interchangeable and are not directly comparable. (shrink)