Automatic alerting does not speed late motoric processes in a reaction-time task

Hackley, Steven A.; Valle-Inclán, Fernando

doi:10.1038/35849

Cited by 133 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This conclusion agrees with the results from recent chronophysiological studies in which temporal uncertainty was manipulated using either short foreperiods (Hackley & Valle-Inclán, 1998; short, medium, and long foreperiods (Müller-Gethmann et al, 2003); or variable versus fixed intertrial intervals (Smulders, 1993). The conclusion is also in line with the PRP study discussed in the introduction (Bausenhart et al, 2006), which used the effect propagation logic (Miller & Reynolds, 2003) of the PRP and localized the temporal uncertainty effect prior to or at the response selection bottleneck.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal uncertainty degrades perceptual processing

Rolke

Hofmann

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

138

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Other theorists, however, have challenged the notion that temporal preparation operates exclusively or primarily at a late motoric level (Hackley & Valle-Inclán, 1998Müller-Gethmann et al, 2003;Smulders, 1993). This challenge is based on chronophysiological studies employing lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) that bisect RTs into early and late phases.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal uncertainty degrades perceptual processing

Rolke

Hofmann

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

138

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Given the strong precedents for the idea of arousal effects on information processing, it is parsimonious to use the same idea to account for the effect of intensity on RF. Fourth, ValleInclan and Hackley (1997) and Hackley and Valle-Inclan (1998) have recently found evidence that irrelevant auditory accessories do not influence the speed of motor processing, in contrast to the present evidence that they clearly influence force output. These investigators measured the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), a psychophysiological marker of hand-specific response preparation.…”

Section: Arousal Modelscontrasting

confidence: 55%

Effects of auditory stimulus intensity on response force in simple, go/no-go, and choice RT tasks

Miller

Franz

Ulrich

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four experiments, increasing the intensities of both relevant and irrelevant auditory stimuli was found to increase response force (RF) in simple, go/no-go, and choice reaction time (RT) tasks. These results raise problems for models that localize the effects of auditory intensity on purely perceptual processes, indicating instead that intensity also affects motor output processes under many circumstances. In Experiment 1, simple RT, go/no-go, and choice RT tasks were compared, using the same stimuli for all tasks. Auditory stimulus intensity affected both RT and RF, and these effects were not modulated by task. In Experiments 2-4, an irrelevant auditory accessory stimulus accompanied a relevant visual stimulus, and the go/no-go and choice tasks were used. The intensity of the irrelevant auditory accessory stimulus was found to affect RT and RF, although the sizes of these effects depended somewhat on the temporal predictability of the accessory stimulus.It is well known that subjects in reaction time (RT) tasks respond faster to bright or loud stimuli than to dim or soft ones (see, e.g., Kohfeld, 1971). This effect is not surprising, because sensory and perceptual processing are clearly faster for more intense physical stimuli (Levick, 1973). Indeed, it is often assumed that the effects of stimulus intensity on RT can be accounted for entirely within the sensory and perceptual systems (see, e.g., Burbeck & Luce, 1982;Hildreth, 1979;Smith, 1995;Sternberg, 1969; Vaughan, Costa, & Gilden, 1966).Contrary to this view, however, there is evidence that stimulus intensity can affect response processes as well as perceptual ones. First, stimulus intensity has been found to influence the forcefulness of responses. For example, Angel (1973) examined stimulus intensity effects on RT and response force (RF) in simple RT tasks using visual, auditory, and tactile stimuli. In each trial, he recorded the full force-time function of the response and found that the peak of this function increased with stimulus inten- sity for all modalities. Ulrich, Rinkenauer, and Miller (1998) successfully replicated Angel's result for both auditory and visual stimuli, and Jaskowski, Rybarczyk, Jaroszyk, and Lemanski (1995) replicated it for auditory stimuli, although not for visual ones. Clearly, an influence of intensity on RF indicates that intensity must have some effect on the response system, even if this effect is contingent on and mediated by the perceptual analysis of the stimulus input. Using similar logic, Abrams and BaIota (1991) and Balota and Abrams (1995) have demonstrated that response dynamics are influenced by more cognitive factors, such as word frequency and memory set size, and have therefore concluded that these factors influence motor stages as well as perceptual and decisionmaking ones.Second, auditory stimulus intensity has been found to influence the variability of the response system in simple RT tasks. Ulrich and Stapf (1984) asked subjects to respond with both hands simultaneously in a simple RT task, and they c...

show abstract

“…from scalp areas located above the left and right motor cortices Coles, 1989;de Jong et al, 1988;Gratton et al, 1988!. The LRP has become a significant tool in studies of mental chronometrỹ e.g., Eimer, Goshke, Schlangecken, & Sturmer, 1996;Hackley & Miller, 1995;Hackley & Valle-Inclán, 1998;Leuthold, Sommer, & Ulrich, 1996;Osman, Moore, & Ulrich, 1995!. For instance, we used the LRP to demonstrate that in a task in which stimuli occasionally contain conflicting information~i.e., noise information calling for a response opposite to that required by the target stimulus!…”

Section: The Lateralized Readiness Potentialmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contralateral organization of visual memory: A theoretical concept and a research tool

Gratton¹

1998

Psychophysiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contralateral-control methods can be applied to psychophysiology and in particular to the study of visual memory. Visual memory possesses some degree of hemispheric organization, so that visual memory traces for laterally presented stimuli are stronger or more durable in the hemisphere contralateral to the hemifield where the stimuli were first presented. I first introduce the concept of hemispheric organization of function. Then I discuss how hemispheric organization can be exploited for obtaining information about the time course and brain localization of psychological processes, using a contralateral-control method. Behavioral and event-related brain potential data support the hemispheric organization view of visual memory, and the contralateral-control method, in conjunction with the recording of the event-related optical signal, can be used to reveal the existence of memory-driven processes in early stations of the visual system.

show abstract

Automatic alerting does not speed late motoric processes in a reaction-time task

Cited by 133 publications

References 12 publications

Temporal uncertainty degrades perceptual processing

Temporal uncertainty degrades perceptual processing

Effects of auditory stimulus intensity on response force in simple, go/no-go, and choice RT tasks

The contralateral organization of visual memory: A theoretical concept and a research tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About