An electromyographic examination of response competition

Eriksen, Charles W.; Coles, Michael; Morris, Lucinda; O'Hara, William P.

doi:10.3758/bf03329816

Cited by 208 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In discussions with colleagues at Illinois, it became clear that notions of response competition and continuous flow could fruitfully be explored using measures of motor-system activity. Thus, first with Coles, Morris, and O'Hara (1985) and later with Coles, Gratton, Donchin, andother colleagues (1985, 1988), psychophysiological evidence was obtained that supported these two ideas. First, flankers that call for the incorrect response are, indeed, associated with incorrect electromyographic activity as well as with more central incorrect response activation.…”

Section: The 1980s and Beyond (Michael Coles And Arthur Kramer)supporting

confidence: 50%

Charles Eriksen Past, present, and future

Kramer

Coles

Eriksen

et al. 1994

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The 1980s and Beyond (Michael Coles And Arthur Kramer)supporting

confidence: 50%

Charles Eriksen Past, present, and future

Kramer

Coles

Eriksen

et al. 1994

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It has been argued that such effects are due to a continuous flow of information from sensory to motor systems, resulting in an activation of motor responses prior to the completion of stimulus analysis Eriksen, Coles, Morris, & O'Hara, 1985;Eriksen & Schultz, 1979;Smid et al, 1990). In line with this hypothesis, evidence has been found that even stimuli presented near or below the threshold of conscious awareness can trigger response activation processes (Dehaene et al, 1999;Klotz & Wolff, 1995;Neumann & Klotz, 1994;Schwarz & Mecklinger, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 62%

“…Consequently, the activation level of M2 will not reach the inhibition threshold, owing to continuous sensory inhibition, and again, the initial activation of M1 will not be inhibited. This is the situation observed with unmasked irrelevant information, as in the Eriksen flanker effect, where distractor stimuli are assumed to selectively prime a corresponding motor response (e.g., Coles et al, 1985;Eriksen et al, 1985;Eriksen & Schultz, 1979;Smid et al, 1990). Note that the absence of response inhibition under these conditions is independent of the strength of sensory traces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Motor activation with and without inhibition: Evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control

Schlaghecken

Eimer

2002

Perception & Psychophysics

148

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Masked primes presented prior to a target can trigger response activation processes that may later be subject to inhibition. Evidence for response inhibition has previously been obtained with primes presented at fixation, but not with primes presented in the periphery of the visual field. It is argued that this central-peripheral asymmetry reflects a threshold mechanism in motor control. Foveal masked primes give rise to stronger perceptual representations than do peripheral primes, resulting in stronger response activations. Strong response activations are actively inhibited, whereas weaker activations remain below a hypothetical inhibition threshold. Evidence in favor of this hypothesis is obtained in four experiments that manipulated the perceptual strengthof foveal and peripheral primes. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrate that when the perceptual strength of peripheral primes is gradually increased by delaying mask onset, positive prime-target compatibility effects (reflecting the absence of response inhibition) turn into negative effects (indicating the presence of response inhibition). Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrate that when the perceptual strength of foveal primes is gradually decreased by degradation, negative compatibility effects turn into positive effects. The results are discussed in terms of a simple functional model of early motor control.

show abstract

“…If, on the other hand, the noise form is from the same response class as is the target on that trial, little or no effect on RT is obtained. In the latter case, even though the noise letter is processed along with the target, the response associated with the noise form is compatible with the target response and there is no response competition (Coles et aI., 1985;C. W. Eriksen, Coles, Morris, & O'Hara, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%