Motor processes in simple, go/no-go, and choice reaction time tasks: A psychophysiological analysis.

Miller, Jeff; Low, Kathy A.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.266

Cited by 117 publications

(127 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The key to understanding these phenomena lies in the underlying mechanisms of these computations in the online controls. For the sake of quick reaction, implicit sensorimotor processes appear to use continuous and direct sensorimotor transformations rather than the action selection or switching mechanism usually assumed in the classical reaction model (Donders, 1969;Ghez and Krakauer, 2000;Miller and Low, 2001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit Visuomotor Processing for Quick Online Reactions Is Robust against Aging

Kadota¹,

Gomi²

2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well established that humans can react more quickly to a visual stimulus in the visual field center than to one in the visual periphery and that the reaction to a stimulus in the visual periphery markedly deteriorates with aging. These tendencies are true in conventional discrimination-reaction tasks. Surprisingly, however, we found that they are entirely different when reactions are induced by the same visual stimuli during reaching movements. The reaction time for a stimulus in the visual periphery was significantly faster than in the central vision, and age-related slowing of reactions to the stimulus in the visual periphery were quite small, compared to that observed in the conventional reaction tasks. This inconsistent slowing of reactions in different motor conditions underscores a distinctive visuomotor pathway for online control, which is more robust against age-related deterioration.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implicit Visuomotor Processing for Quick Online Reactions Is Robust against Aging

Kadota¹,

Gomi²

2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Increasing speed of processing can involve a wide range of sensory, cognitive and motor functions, and has been studied at the behavioural level with many different choice reaction time (RT) tasks (Konrad et al, 2009;Madden et al, 2004;Miller and Low, 2001). In this study, we wished to clarify whether choice RT on a simple behavioural task was correlated with microstructure within the motor network.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain microstructural correlates of visuospatial choice reaction time in children

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The corticospinal tracts and the basal ganglia continue to develop during childhood and adolescence, and indices of their maturation can be obtained using diffusion-weighted imaging. Here we show that a simple measure of visuomotor function is correlated with diffusion parameters in the corticospinal tracts and neostriatum. In a cohort of 75 typically-developing children aged 7 to 13 years, mean 5-choice reaction times (RTs) were assessed. We hypothesised that children with faster choice RTs would show lower mean diffusivity (MD) in the corticospinal tracts and neostriatum and higher fractional anisotropy (FA) in the corticospinal tracts, after controlling for age, gender, and handedness. Mean MD and/or FA were extracted from the right and left corticospinal tracts, putamen, and caudate nuclei. As predicted, faster 5-choice RTs were associated with lower MD in the corticospinal tracts, putamen, and caudate. MD effects on RT were bilateral in the corticospinal tracts and putamen, whilst right caudate MD was more strongly related to performance than was left caudate MD. Our results suggest a link between motor performance variability in children and diffusivity in the motor system, which may be related to: individual differences in the phase of fibre tract and neostriatal maturation in children of similar age, individual differences in motor experience during childhood (i.e., use-dependent plasticity), and/or more stable individual differences in the architecture of the motor system.

show abstract

“…This is the lateralized readiness potential (LRP; see, e.g., Coles, 1989; for reviews, see Eimer & Coles, 2003;Leuthold, Sommer, & Ulrich, 1996;Miller & Low, 2001;Miller, Ulrich, & Rinkenauer, 1999;Osman et al, 2000). Prior to the initiation of a voluntary movement, a negative potential can be observed over the human scalp.…”

Section: Event-related Readiness Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, being rather debatable, the assumptions of the AFM-that is, serial processing and independence of consecutive processing stages-have been criticized from the very beginning (Külpe, 1895) and are still subject to verification (e.g., Band & Miller, 1997;Miller & Low, 2001;Pachella, 1974;Thomas, 2006;Ulrich, Mattes, & Miller, 1999). Similarly, the direct comparison of effects on RT and latency of early ERP waves has also been questioned.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Locus of the intensity effect in simple reaction time tasks

Jaśkowskí

Kurczewska

Nowik³

et al. 2007

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1334Reaction time (RT) is known to decrease as a function of stimulus intensity, approaching an asymptote for the most intense stimuli. This is particularly true for simple reactions, but not always for more complex tasks (see, e.g., van der Molen & Keuss, 1979). Stimulus intensity has usually been considered a factor influencing only very early stages of information processing. Evidence supporting this view has come both from studies employing the additive factors method (AFM) and from psychophysiological measures. It has been shown that the intensity effect on RT is additive with the effects of other factors, such as foreperiod duration, stimulus-response compatibility, number of alternatives, stimulus probability, and practice (e.g., Everett, Hochhaus, & Brown, 1985;Niemi, 1979;Raab, Fehrer, & Hershenson, 1961;Sanders & Andriessen, 1978;Schweickert, Dahn, & McGuigan, 1988; Shwartz, Pomerantz, & Egeth, 197). According to AFM, the additivity of intensity and other factors means that the stage affected by intensity is different from the stages affected by those other factors. Therefore, one might reasonably assume that this particular stage occurs very early in processing, distant from other stages. This claim has gained further support from electrophysiological studies in which the effect of intensity on simple RT and on the latency of early components of event-related potentials (ERPs) have been directly compared. Using this approach, Vaughan, Costa, and Gilden (1966), Wilson and Lit (1981), and Ja kowski, Pruszewicz, and widzi ski (1990) found that visual intensity had identical effects on simple RT and on the latency of the N1 component. These findings suggested that the processes later than those reflected by the N1 (which peaks at about 100-150 msec) are independent of stimulus intensity. Evidence from a number of other studies, however, is in conflict with this view. Locus of the intensity effect in simple reaction time tasks ROLF VERLEGER University of Lübeck, Lübeck, GermanyEvidence is still inconclusive regarding the locus of the stimulus intensity effect on information processing in reaction tasks. Miller, Ulrich, and Rinkenauer (1999) addressed this question by assessing the intensity effect on stimulus-and response-locked lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) as indices of the sensory and motor parts of reaction time (RT). In the case of visual stimuli, they observed that application of brighter stimuli resulted in a shortening of RT and stimulus-locked LRP (S-LRP), but not of response-locked LRP (R-LRP). The results for auditory stimuli, however, were unclear. In spite of a clear RT reduction due to increased loudness, neither S-LRP nor R-LRP onset was affected. A reason for this failure might have been a relatively small range of intensity variation and the type of task. To check for this possibility, we performed three experiments in which broader ranges of stimulus intensities and simple, rather than choice, response tasks were used. Although the intensity effect on the R-LRP was negligible, ...

show abstract

Motor processes in simple, go/no-go, and choice reaction time tasks: A psychophysiological analysis.

Cited by 117 publications

References 86 publications

Implicit Visuomotor Processing for Quick Online Reactions Is Robust against Aging

Implicit Visuomotor Processing for Quick Online Reactions Is Robust against Aging

Brain microstructural correlates of visuospatial choice reaction time in children

Locus of the intensity effect in simple reaction time tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About