Can arousal modulate response inhibition?

Weinbach, Noam; Kalanthroff, Eyal; Avnit, Amir; Henik, Avishai

doi:10.1037/xlm0000118

Cited by 19 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, it could be argued that the beneficial effect of alerting signals cannot be attributed solely to an influence on response selection, because there is no selection between two response options in these tasks (but see Gomez, Ratcliff, & Perea, 2007, for evidence that go-no-go tasks may be a special variant of response selection tasks). Instead, an alerting effect on response speed without an increase in error rates might be better explained in terms of a perceptual processing benefit (see also Weinbach, Kalanthroff, Avnit, & Henik, 2015). In line with this alternative explanation, a variety of studies investigating alerting effects outside of conflict paradigms have shown that alerting signals modulate indicators of perceptual processing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Do alerting signals increase the size of the attentional focus?

Seibold

2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that the presentation of an auditory alerting signal before a visual target increases the interference from flanking distractors. Recently, it has been suggested that this increase in interference may be due to an expansion of the spatial focus of attention. In five experiments, this hypothesis was tested by using a probe technique dedicated to measuring variations in the size of the attentional focus: In the majority of trials, participants performed a letter discrimination task in which their attention was focused on a central target letter. In a randomly intermixed probe task, the size of the attentional focus was measured by letting participants respond to a probe occurring at varying positions. In all experiments, reaction time (RT) to the probe increased from the most central to more lateral probe positions. This V-shaped probe-RT function, however, was not flattened by the presentation of an alerting signal. Overall, this pattern of results is inconsistent with the hypothesis that alerting signals increase the attentional focus. Instead, it is consistent with nonspatial accounts that attribute the increase in interference to an alerting effect on perceptual processing, which then leads to a detrimental effect at the level of response selection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Do alerting signals increase the size of the attentional focus?

Seibold

2017

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in the Stop-signal task, which measures a more global form of response inhibition, Stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) was significantly slower in the temporal versus neutral condition. This result could be due either to faster SSRTs in the neutral condition (Weinbach et al, 2015) or slower SSRTs in the temporal condition. In parallel, response times to go targets were significantly faster in the temporal versus neutral condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Many previous studies of response inhibition have shown that presentation of non-specific warning cues in the Flanker paradigm increases interference effects, due either to a deleterious effect on cognitive control (e.g., Callejas, Lupiàñez, Funes, & Tudela, 2005) or to enhanced sensory processing of irrelevant, as well as relevant, stimuli (e.g., Nieuwenhuis & de Kleijn, 2013;Weinbach & Henik, 2012b). Indeed, enhanced sensory processing has also been used to explain the beneficial effects of warning cues in the Stop-signal paradigm (Weinbach, Kalanthroff, Avnit, & Henik, 2015). These authors have also made a clear distinction between warning cues (a non-specific state of alertness before target onset) and temporal cues (prediction of target onset) (Weinbach & Henik, 2012a, 2013, and suggested that each might influence processing in similar, yet independent, ways.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The costs and benefits of temporal predictability: impaired inhibition of prepotent responses accompanies increased activation of task-relevant responses

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the benefit of temporal predictability on sensorimotor processing is well established, it is still unknown whether this is due to efficient execution of an appropriate response and/or inhibition of an inappropriate one. To answer this question, we examined the effects of temporal predictability in tasks that required selective (Simon task) or global (Stop-signal task) inhibitory control of prepotent responses. We manipulated temporal expectation by presenting cues that either predicted (temporal cues) or not (neutral cues) when the target would appear. In the Simon task, performance was better when target location (left/right) was compatible with the hand of response and performance was improved further still if targets were temporally cued. However, Conditional Accuracy Functions revealed that temporal predictability selectively increased the number of fast, impulsive errors. Temporal cueing had no effect on selective response inhibition, as measured by the dynamics of the interference effect (delta plots) in the Simon task. By contrast, in the Stop-signal task, Stop-signal reaction time, a covert measure of a more global form of response inhibition, was significantly longer in temporally predictive trials. Therefore, when the time of target onset could be predicted in advance, it was harder to stop the impulse to respond to the target. Collectively, our results indicate that temporal cueing compounded the interfering effects of a prepotent response on task performance. We suggest that although temporal predictability enhances activation of task-relevant responses, it impairs inhibition of prepotent responses.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the SSRT results revealed that threat impaired the ability to inhibit activated responses (see e.g., Herbert & Sütterlin, 2011;Kalanthroff et al, 2013;Pessoa et al, 2012 experiment 2;Rebetez et al, 2015;Verbruggen & De Houwer, 2007;Yu et al, 2012 for comparable findings). Although this effect is not always observed in behavioral experiments (see e.g., Pawliczek et al, 2013;Pessoa et al, 2012 experiment 1;Sagaspe et al, 2011;Senderecka, 2016;Weinbach et al, 2015), it is in line with THREAT, SLEEP DEPRIVATION AND RESPONSE INHIBITION 19 neurobiological models suggesting that acute threat causes a decrease in prefrontal cognitive control functions (see e.g., Bishop, 2008;Hermans et al, 2014). The fact that we did find impaired stop-signal response inhibition under threat while others did not, may be due to the intensity of our threat manipulation.…”

Section: Effects Of Threat On Shooting Decisions and Response Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Effects of threat and sleep deprivation on action tendencies and response inhibition.

Peer

Gladwin

Nieuwenhuys

2019

Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to control action is crucial for adaptive responding, but may be compromised in situations involving strong emotions (e.g., threat) or when people are deprived of resources (e.g., sleep). As compromised action control can have large consequences in threatening situations, for example when police officers face a potentially armed suspect, we experimentally investigated how acute threat and partial sleep deprivation affect the ability to control impulsive responses, in 52 healthy young adults performing a simulated shooting task. The results showed that acute threat increased the tendency to act quickly (i.e., reduced response times; Coef = 9.46, 95% CI [3.49, 15.29], p = .001) and impaired response inhibition (i.e., increased stop signal reaction times; Coef =-4.91, 95% CI [-9.47,-0.44], p = .035). In addition, three nights of partial sleep deprivation (five hours [n = 28] vs. eight hours [n = 24] of sleep), led to a significant decrease in overall response accuracy (Coef =-0.22, 95% CI [-0.40,-0.05], p = .025). Contrary to expectations, our results did not show increased threat sensitivity in sleep-deprived individuals (all p > .13). Nevertheless, they may have important implications for professionals who are required to maintain behavioral control under high levels of threat and who experience disturbed sleep due to e.g. shift work, as both factors negatively affected performance.

show abstract

Can arousal modulate response inhibition?

Cited by 19 publications

References 37 publications

Do alerting signals increase the size of the attentional focus?

Do alerting signals increase the size of the attentional focus?

The costs and benefits of temporal predictability: impaired inhibition of prepotent responses accompanies increased activation of task-relevant responses

Effects of threat and sleep deprivation on action tendencies and response inhibition.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About