Evidence of a Single-Channel Decision Mechanism Limiting Performance in a Serial Reaction Task

Welford, A. T.

doi:10.1080/17470215908416312

Cited by 179 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study might provide an answer to the longdebated question (Telford, 1931;Welford, 1952Welford, , 1959Bertelson, 1966;Georgopoulos et al, 1981) as to whether the CNS can process different motor information in a parallel fashion. Translated into our experimental design, this question refers to the potential coexistence of neural signals about the execution of hand movement along a given path with those concerning the planning of a different trajectory.…”

Section: Parallel Versus Sequential Processing Of Current and Future mentioning

confidence: 85%

Online Control of Hand Trajectory and Evolution of Motor Intention in the Parietofrontal System

Archambault¹,

Ferrari-Toniolo²,

Battaglia-Mayer³

2011

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The frontal mechanisms of motor intention were studied in dorsal premotor and motor cortex of monkeys making direct reaches to visual targets and online corrections of hand trajectory, whenever a change of the target's location occurred. This study and our previous one of parietal cortex (Archambault et al., 2009) provide a picture on the evolution of motor intention and online control of movement in the parietofrontal system. In frontal cortex, significant relationships were found between neural activity and hand kinematics (position, speed, and movement direction). When a change of motor intention occurred, the activity typical of the movement to the first target smoothly evolved into that associated with the movement toward the second one, as observed during direct reaches. Under these conditions, parietal cells remained a more accurate predictor of hand trajectory than frontal ones. The time lags of neural activity with hand kinematics showed that motor, premotor, and parietal cortex were activated sequentially. After the first target's presentation and its change of location, the population activity signaled the change of motor plan before the hand moved to the initial target's position. This signaling occurred earlier in premotor than in motor and parietal cortex. Thus, premotor cortex encodes a higher-order command for the correction of motor intention, while parietal cortex seems responsible for estimating the kinematics of the motor periphery, an essential step to allow motor cortex to modify the hand trajectory. This indicates that the parietofrontal system can update an original and not-yet-accomplished motor plan during its execution.

show abstract

Section: Parallel Versus Sequential Processing Of Current and Future mentioning

confidence: 85%

Online Control of Hand Trajectory and Evolution of Motor Intention in the Parietofrontal System

Archambault¹,

Ferrari-Toniolo²,

Battaglia-Mayer³

2011

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is varied (for reviews see Navon & Miller, 2002;Pashler, 1994). A ubiquitous finding, the PRP effect, is that the mean Task 2 reaction time increases with decreasing SOA, whereas the mean Task 1 reaction time remains fairly constant across SOAs (e.g., Kahneman, 1973;Telford, 1931;Welford, 1952Welford, , 1959. This pattern has been attributed to the existence of a central capacity bottleneck (e.g., Johnston, McCann, & Remington, 1995;Pashler, 1984Pashler, , 1994.…”

Section: An Overview Of Lexical Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capacity demands of phoneme selection in word production: New evidence from dual-task experiments.

Cook¹,

Meyer²

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three dual-task experiments investigated the capacity demands of phoneme selection in picture naming. On each trial, participants named a target picture (Task 1) and carried out a tone discrimination task (Task 2). To vary the time required for phoneme selection, the authors combined the targets with phonologically related or unrelated distractor pictures (Experiment 1) or words, which were clearly visible (Experiment 2) or masked (Experiment 3). When pictures or masked words were presented, the tone discrimination and picture naming latencies were shorter in the related condition than in the unrelated condition, which indicates that phoneme selection requires central processing capacity. However, when the distractor words were clearly visible, the facilitatory effect was confined to the picture naming latencies. This pattern arose because the visible related distractor words facilitated phoneme selection but slowed down speech monitoring processes that had to be completed before the response to the tone could be selected.

show abstract

“…Extensive research has been conducted to understand the mechanism that underlies this dual-task interference. Welford (1952Welford ( , 1959 and Davis (1957) suggested that there is a single-channelprocess located in the central stage. Broadbent (1958Broadbent ( , 1982 argued that there is a limitation on how much information the cognitive system can transmit at one time.…”

Section: Dual-task Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection

Lien

Proctor

2002

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

199

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In studies of human information processing, the processing stages of stimulus identification and response initiation are typically distinguished from a central processing stage that is often called response selection. Issues regarding response selection have been investigated thoroughly in two areas of research, stimulus-response compatibility(SRC) and psychologicalrefractory period (PRP) effects. Fitts and Seeger (1953) were the first to demonstrate SRC effects, showing that performance depends not only on the individual properties of the stimuli and responses but also on their relation. A large empirical base regarding SRC effects exists, along with relatively sophisticated theoretical accounts of how response selection in single-task performance is affected by compatibility relations. Telford (1931) was the first to demonstrate the PRP effect, in which, when two tasks must be performed on successive stimuli, the response to the second stimulus is delayed when the interval between stimulus onsets is short. As for SRC effects, substantial empirical and theoretical work on the PRP effect has been conducted on how response selection for one task is affected by response selection for another.Although considerable research has been conducted on the SRC and PRP effects individually, few experiments have examined the two effects jointly. A reason for the lack of studies manipulating SRC in the PRP paradigm may lie in the belief that response selection for each task occurs the same way as it does in a single-task context. However, as Duncan (1979) pointed out, "In any PRP situation, the response sets of two single tasks have been combined to give a larger total set. It is perhaps unreasonable to suppose that this leaves unaffected the complexity of response choice" (p. 225). Moreover, Hommel (1998) demonstrated that considerable interaction occurs between the two tasks. The implication is that one cannot assume that response selection for each task in dual-task contexts is performed in the same manner as when each task is performed alone. Systematic examination of SRC effects in the PRP paradigm is necessary to provide a more complete understanding of the response-selection mechanism.The purpose of the present paper, therefore, was to review SRC and PRP in the literature as they relate to issues of response selection and, most importantly, to examine in detail those studies that have looked at SRC effects in the PRP paradigm for any additional insights into the nature of response selection that they afford. We begin by reviewing SRC effects and the models developed to account for them. Such effects have been obtained for relevant and irWe thank Bernhard Hommel, Hal Pashler, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M.-C. Lien, Mail Stop 262-4, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 or to R. W. Proctor, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: ...

show abstract

Evidence of a Single-Channel Decision Mechanism Limiting Performance in a Serial Reaction Task

Cited by 179 publications

References 15 publications

Online Control of Hand Trajectory and Evolution of Motor Intention in the Parietofrontal System

Online Control of Hand Trajectory and Evolution of Motor Intention in the Parietofrontal System

Capacity demands of phoneme selection in word production: New evidence from dual-task experiments.

Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About