Dissociation between behavioral and psychophysiological measures of response preparation

Miller, Jeff; Coles, Michael; Chakraborty, Susmita

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(95)00046-1

Cited by 34 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent evidence, however, indicates that RT and LRP are not equivalent measures of response preparation~Miller, Coles, & Chakraborty, 1996!. Within a single experiment, Miller et al~1996!…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor programming of response force and movement direction

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of movement advance information were assessed on the prestimulus amplitude of the lateralized readiness potential~LRP!, on the contingent negative variation~CNV!, and on reaction time~RT!. In a precuing paradigm with movement parameters hand, direction, and force, partial precues provided advance information about either hand alone, hand plus force, or hand plus direction, and the full precue specified all response parameters. The full precue produced the shortest RTs and the largest CNV amplitude, precuing hand and force or hand and movement direction produced somewhat slower RTs and a somewhat smaller CNV amplitude, and precuing only hand yielded slowest RTs and the smallest CNV amplitude. In contrast, the LRP amplitude was largest for the full precue and was the same for the remaining precues. The CNV appears to index the central assembling of a motor program, and the LRP represents the implementation of the program at more peripheral levels. The introduction of event-related brain potentials~ERPs! in the study of movement preparation has provided new approaches and insights into what had previously been an exclusively behavioral field. The most successful approach in cognitive psychology to analyze the nature of movement preparation employs the precuing technique developed by Rosenbaum~1980, 1983!. This technique is a variant of a choice reaction time~RT! task, in which each of the possible responses is associated with a single imperative stimulus. Before the onset of the stimulus, a precue conveys information about certain movement parameters. Usually, RT decreases with the amount of advance information provided. From the relation between advance information and the corresponding RT saving, cognitive psychologists hoped to learn more about motoric preparation and the nature of motor programs~e.g., Rosenbaum, 1980!. However, this approach was criticized by Goodman and Kelso~1980! who argued that the RT saving observed with this technique does not reflect a genuine motor effect but rather the facilitation of response selection at a premotoric level. The debate on whether the RT saving reflects a genuine motoric effect could not be settled with the traditional behavioral RT measure because the motoric portion of RT is not directly observable.In resolving this controversy, a new measure, the lateralized readiness potential~LRP!, has recently been used~Leuthold, Sommer, & Ulrich, 1996!; there is strong evidence that the LRP provides a specific index to trace the time course of motor activatioñ cf. Coles, Gratton, & Donchin, 1988;De Jong, Wierda, Mulder, & Mulder, 1988;Miller & Hackley, 1992!. Experiments employing LRP often involve a two-choice RT task in which a precue informs the participant about the responding hand and a subsequent imperative stimulus tells the participant that the response should now be made. During the interval between the precue and the imperative stimulus, the motor readiness potential exhibits greater negativity over the motor cortex contralateral to the responding hand,...

show abstract

“…Recent evidence, however, indicates that RT and LRP are not equivalent measures of response preparation~Miller, Coles, & Chakraborty, 1996!. Within a single experiment, Miller et al~1996!…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor programming of response force and movement direction

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because this easy discrimination is so rapid, subjects are able to choose the responding hand and begin motor preparation even before they have ªnished analyzing all of the other attributes of the stimulus (Band & Miller, 1997;Hackley & Valle-Inclán, 1998;Miller, Coles, & Chakraborty, 1996;Miller & Hackley, 1992).…”

Section: Experimental Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Accessory Stimulus Effects on Response Selection: Does Arousal Speed Decision Making?

Hackley

Valle-Inclán

1999

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstracts When an intense but task-irrelevant "accessory" stimulus accompanies the imperative stimulus in a choice reaction task, reaction times (RTs) are facilitated. In a similar previous study (Hackley & Valle-Inclán, 1998), we showed that this effect is not due to a reduction of the interval from onset of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) until movement onset. In the present study, the RT task was modiªed to move a portion of the response selection stage into this time interval. The interval remained invariant, indicating that this late phase of the response selection process is not speeded by accessory stimulation. However, we observed amplitude modulation of the LRP on no-go trials in a condition with three alternative responses. This ªnding suggests that an earlier phase of response selection is inºuenced by accessory stimulation. In addition, a novel dependent measure was introduced to event-related potential research-the latency of spontaneous, posttrial blinking. s

show abstract

“…All three studies found a dissociation between these two measures: probe RTs were influenced by preliminary information, but LRPs were not. Moreover, Miller et al (1996) found this dissociation within a TESTS OF ADC MODEL 1345 single data set (i.e., same subjects and experimental trials), ruling out the possibility that subtle changes in experimental procedure were responsible for differences in the two measures. One plausible interpretation ofthis dissociation is that the probe RT and LRP paradigms are sensitive to different kinds of effects of preliminary information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Using three different tasks, Band and Miller (1997), Ban and Miller (1998), and Miller, Coles, and Chakraborty (1996) all tested for effects of preliminary information using both the LRP and a probe-R'I measure described in Experiment I. All three studies found a dissociation between these two measures: probe RTs were influenced by preliminary information, but LRPs were not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One plausible interpretation ofthis dissociation is that the probe RT and LRP paradigms are sensitive to different kinds of effects of preliminary information. More specifically, Miller et al (1996) argued that the probe RT must measure an effect of preliminary information on a response-related stage preceding response preparation (e.g., response selection), whereas the LRP measures an effect on more peripheral motor preparation processes. Another possible interpretation of the dissociation is that the probe-RT measure is simply more sensitive than the LRP, but this interpretation is implausible for reasons that will be presented in the General Discussion section.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The asynchronous discrete coding model: Further tests with single-attribute stimuli

Trevena

Miller

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments using a probe-RT paradigrn showed that partial information about the size of a stimulus can influence response processes before complete size information is available. Contrary to the asynchronous discrete coding model, these results suggest that the perceptual system may transmit to the response system information that only partially specifies a single stimulus attribute. In combination with previous findings, these results also suggest that there are at least two dissociable forms of selective preparation for a given response.One of the most common assumptions about human information processing is that the flow of information through the nervous system can be decomposed into distinct stages (e.g., Donders, 1868Donders, /1969Sternberg, 1969). For example, when the presentation of an object requires the performance ofan action, the hypothetical stages may include stimulus detection, stimulus identification, selection ofa response, response preparation, and response execution. Sternberg (1969) suggested that such stages occur in strict succession (i.e., in discrete stages), so that each stage can begin only after the previous stage has finished. Because the stages do not overlap, this conception predicts that the reaction time (RT) to a stimulus can simply be interpreted as the sum of the durations of the individual stages.In contrast, other theorists have proposed continuous models in which stages' may overlap in time (e.g., Eriksen & Schultz, 1979;McClelland, 1979). For example, suppose that the perceptual stage carries out a number ofseparate analyses on a given stimulus, and that as soon as the first analysis has been completed, its result istransmitted to the next stage. This next stage could then start processing based on the initial output from the perceptual stage, even though it would continue to receive more perceptual information as further discriminations were made. Ifthese models are correct, response-level processing could begin before perceptual analysis completed, and RT could not be understood as simply the sum ofthe times for each of the processes required by the task.As has been noted previously (e.g., Miller & Hackley, 1992), neither discrete nor continuous models need be applicable under all circumstances, so the goal in studying these models is not so much to decide which one is true as to understand the conditions under which each This research was supported by Otago Research Grant MFU-B75. The authors thank Michael Coles, Patricia Haden, Arthur Kramer, Robert Proctor, Rolf Ulrich, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier drafts ofthe article. Correspondence should be addressed to J. Miller, Department ofPsychology, University ofOtago, Dunedin, New Zealand (e-mail: miller@otago.ac.nz).model best describes the way we process information. For example, Meyer, Yantis, Osman, and Smith (1985) found evidence that processing tends to be discrete in tasks with few responses and compatible stirnulus-response (S-R) mappings but tends to be continuous when there are ma...

show abstract

Dissociation between behavioral and psychophysiological measures of response preparation

Cited by 34 publications

References 22 publications

Motor programming of response force and movement direction

Motor programming of response force and movement direction

Accessory Stimulus Effects on Response Selection: Does Arousal Speed Decision Making?

The asynchronous discrete coding model: Further tests with single-attribute stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About