English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Studies have reported that an accessory stimulus in a second modality can have a facilitative effect on sensory detection in a primary modality. However, performance declines when the subject has the additional task of reporting on the accessory stimulus. The facilitative effect has been attributed to an arousal or warning process, while the interference effect has been characterized as a result of limited channel capacity. Auditory sensitivity was assessed under accessory visual stimulation. Visual stimulus intensity (arousal), processing demand, and interstimulus compatibility (same or opposite direction of change of primary and secondary stimuli) were manipulated. The results indicated that interstimulus compatibility, not arousal, accounted for the obtained facilitation effect. Interference due to additional task demands was not observed. It was proposed that the facilitation effect was due to selective sensory encoding.

Stimulus compatibility effects of an accessory visual stimulus on auditory sensitivity