target location incorrectly. Whereas Ngo and Spence reported spatial cueing effects (see also [40,41]) when they manipulated the location of the synchronized auditory signal, we reported cueing effects when we manipulated the size of the visual cue prior to the spatially uninformative auditory signal. In the present study, the cue was always centrally presented and did not contain any spatial information about the target location. The present findings may appear inconsistent with those of Santangelo and Spence [31]. They investigated whether unimodal and multimodal cues still capture attention when participants had to monitor a rapidly presented central stream of visual letters for occasionally presented digits. Under this high perceptual load condition, spatial cueing effects were observed when the visual target was preceded by a multimodal cue, but not when the visual target was preceded by a unimodal cue. The presence of a References 1. Alais D, Newell FN, Mamassian P (2010) Multisensory processing in review: from physiology to behaviour. Seeing and perceiving 23: 3–38. 2. Shams L, Kim R (2010) Crossmodal influences on visual perception. Physics of Life Reviews 7: 269–284. 3. Alais D, Burr D (2004) The ventriloquism effect results from near-optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology 14: 257–262. 4. McGurk H, MacDonald J (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264: 746–748. 5. Spence C (2007) Audiovisual multisensory integration. Acoustical Science and Technology 28: 61–70. 6. Van der Burg E, Olivers CNL, Bronkhorst AW, Theeuwes J (2008) Pip and pop: Non-spatial auditory signals improve spatial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 34: 1053–1065. 7. Van der Burg E, Olivers CNL, Bronkhorst AW, Theeuwes J (2009) Poke and pop: Tactile-visual synchrony increases visual saliency. Neuroscience Letters 450: 60–64. 8. Ngo MK, Spence C (2010) Auditory, tactile, and multisensory cues facilitate search for dynamic visual stimuli. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 72: 1654–1665. 9. Van der Burg E, Talsma D, Olivers CNL, Hickey C, Theeuwes J (2011) Early multisensory interactions affect the competition among multiple visual objects. NeuroImage 55: 1208–1218. 10. Van der Burg E, Olivers CNL, Bronkhorst AW, Theeuwes J (2008) Audiovisual events capture attention: Evidence from temporal order judgments. Journal of Vision 8: art: 2. 11. Matusz PJ, Eimer M (2011) Multisensory enhancement of attentional capture in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18: 904–909. 12. Theeuwes J (1992) Perceptual selectivity for color and form. Perception & Psychophysics 51: 599–606. 13. Yantis S, Jonides J (1984) Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10: 601–621. 14. Belopolsky AV, Zwaan L, Theeuwes J, Kramer AF (2007) The size of an attentional window modulates attentional capture by color singletons. Psycho- nomic Bulletin & Review 14: 934–938. 15. Belopolsky AV, Theeuwes J (2010) No capture outside the attentional window. Vision Research. 16. Hernandez M, Costa A, Humphreys GW (2010) The size of an attentional window affects working memory guidance. Attention, Perception & Psycho- physics 72: 963–972. 17. Theeuwes J (1994) Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: Selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20: 799–806. 18. Theeuwes J (1994) Endogenous and exogenous control of visual selection. Perception 23: 429–440. 19. Theeuwes J (2010) Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica 123: 77–99. 20. Theeuwes J (1991) Exogenous and Endogenous Control of Attention: The Effect of Visual Onsets and Offsets. Perception & Psychophysics 49: 83–90. 21. Yantis S, Jonides J (1990) Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16: 121–134. Attentional Window Affects Audiovisual Capture multisensory integration under focused attention conditions appears at odds with the present argument. However, we do not claim that under focused attention conditions there is no attentional capture by audiovisual events whatsoever. After all, observers were still better in the tone present condition than in the tone absent condition even under focused settings. All we claim is that capture is reduced under focused conditions relative to distributed attentional settings. Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: EVdB CNLO. Performed the experiments: EVdB. Analyzed the data: EVdB. Contributed reagents/ materials/analysis tools: JT. Wrote the paper: EVdB CNLO JT. 22. Yantis S, Johnston JC (1990) On the Locus of Visual Selection: Evidence From Focused Attention Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16: 135–149. 23. Carrasco M, Evert DL, Chang I, Katz SM (1995) The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjuction searches. Perception & Psycho- physics 57: 1241–1261. 24. Van der Burg E, Cass J, Olivers CNL, Theeuwes J, Alais D (2010) Efficient visual search from synchronized auditory signals requires transient audiovisual events. PLoS ONE 5: e10664. 25. Staufenbiel SM, van der Lubbe RHJ, Talsma D (2011) Spatially uninformative sounds increase sensitivity for visual motion change. Experimental Brain Research 213: 457–464. 26. de Boer-Schellekens L, Vroomen J (2011) Sound can improve visual search in developmental dyslexia. Experimental Brain Research. 27. Treisman A, Gelade G (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 12: 97–136. 28. Driver J (1996) Enhancement of selective listening by illusory mislocation of speech sounds due to lip-reading. Nature 381: 66–68. 29. Vroomen J, De Gelder B (2000) Sound enhances visual perception: Cross-modal effects of auditory organization on vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26: 1583–1590. 30. Olivers CNL, Van der Burg E (2008) Bleeping you out of the blink: Sound saves vision from oblivion. Brain Research 1242: 191–199. 31. Santangelo V, Spence C (2007) Multisensory cues capture spatial attention regardless of perceptual load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 33: 1311–1321. 32. Alsius A, Navarra J, Soto-Faraco S (2007) Attention to touch weakens audiovisual speech integration. Experimental Brain Research 183: 399–404. 33. Alsius A, Navarra J, Campbell R, Soto-Faraco S (2005) Audiovisual integration of speech falters under attention demands. Current Biology 15: 839–843. 34. Busse L, Roberts KC, Crist RE, Weissman DH, Woldorff MG (2005) The spread of attention across modalities and space in a multisensory object. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102: 18751–18756. 35. Fujisaki W, Koene A, Arnold D, Johnston A, Nishida S (2006) Visual search for a target changing in synchrony with an auditory signal. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 273: 865–874. 36. Talsma D, Doty TJ, Woldorff MG (2007) Selective attention and audiovisual integration: Is attending to both modalities a prerequisite for early integration? Cerebral Cortex 17: 691–701. 37. Van Ee R, Van Boxtel JJA, Parker AM, Alais D (2009) Multisensory Congruency as a Mechanism for Attentional Control over Perceptual Selection. The Journal of Neuroscience 29: 11641–11649. 38. Van der Burg E, Brederoo SG, Nieuwenstein MR, Theeuwes J, Olivers CNL (2010) Audiovisual semantic interference and attention: Evidence from the attentional blink paradigm. Acta Psychologica 134: 198–205. 39. Talsma D, Senkowski D, Soto-Faraco S, Woldorff MG (2010) The multifaceted interplay between attention and multisensory integration. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 400–410. 40. Perrott DR, Cisneros J, McKinley RL, D’Angelo WR (1996) Aurally aided visual search under virtual and free-field listening conditions. Human Factors 38: 702–715. 41. Spence C, Driver J (1996) Audiovisual links in endogenous covert spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Pscyhology: Human Perception and Performance 22: 1005–1030. PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 July 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 7 | e39137