It is well possible however, that by assigning single sources to visual areas we actually summed over several individual sources per area that could be assumed to be present due to the presentation of stimuli in different locations.
Thus, the concurrent presentation of stimuli in the present study is likely to have facilitated information processing via modulation of either integrative or attentional processes, resulting in enhanced learning of novel multisensory stimulus pairs.
However, the cross-modal advantage may have resulted from the method of presentation of stimuli whereby auditory-visual pairs were presented simultaneously but intra-modal pairs were presented sequentially.
According to SOP, the presentation of stimuli (objects or the context in which they are presented) is assumed to elicit activity in a population of representational elements, coding for identity of each stimulus.
The presentation of stimuli complied the following steps: First, a fixation mark was presented for 500 ms, which was followed by a blank screen presented for 500 ms.
In the present study we used an experimental design which does not require the presentation of stimuli during EPI acquisitions and allows for mapping of the auditory cortex without the interference of scanner noise.
Thus, the method of presentation of stimuli used to evaluate comfort while standing altered the response.
Registration and presentation of stimuli was the same as reported for Experiment 1a and the same apparatus was used.
We recorded and compared event-related potentials (ERPs) to the presentation of stimuli instantiating expected or unexpected features.
By controlling the presentation of stimuli, we were also able to directly compare Novices and Experts, which would not be possible if viewing times and styles varied greatly.
screen laptop computers and the DMDX software (Forster & Forster, 2003) was used for the presentation of stimuli and data registry (reaction time and error percentage).
