Transfer effects in auditory temporal preparation occur using an unfilled but not filled foreperiod

Abstract

How quickly participants respond to a ‘go’ after a ‘warning’ signal is partly determined by the time between the two signals (the foreperiod) and the distribution of foreperiods. According to Multiple Trace Theory of Temporal Preparation (MTP), participants use memory traces of previous foreperiods to prepare for the upcoming go signal. If the processes underlying temporal preparation reflect general encoding and memory principles, transfer effects (the carry-over effect of a previous block’s distribution of foreperiods to the current block) should be observed regardless of the sensory modality in which signals are presented. Despite convincing evidence for transfer effects in the visual domain, only weak evidence for transfer effects has been documented in the auditory domain. Three experiments were conducted to examine whether such differences in results are due to the modality of the stimulus or other procedural factors. In each experiment, two groups of participants were exposed to different foreperiod distributions in the acquisition phase and to the same foreperiod distribution in the transfer phase. Experiment 1 used a choice-reaction time (RT) task and the warning signal remained on until the go signal but there was no evidence for transfer effects. Experiment 2 and 3 used a simple- and choice-RT task, respectively, and there was silence between the warning and go signals. Both experiments revealed evidence for transfer effects which suggests that transfer effects are most evident when there is no auditory stimulation between the warning and go signals.

Pupillary fluctuation amplitude preceding target presentation is linked to the variable foreperiod effect on reaction time in Psychomotor Vigilance Tasks

“…We have proposed two possible mechanisms underlying the M-PUI's reflection of the FP effect after considering the three temporal attention models: the dual-process model [12,[32][33][34], the multiple trace theory of temporal preparation [14,15], and the recent view [18,[46][47][48][49]. One possibility is that M-PUI's reduction reflects the degree of preparation for target detection/ reaction that increases as FP (n) increases through the top-down regulation of LC-NE excitatory phasic activity [50] (i.e., the excitatory LC-NE account).…”

“…Two mainstream models explain the FP and SE effects of temporal attention in the short-term variable FP paradigm: the dual-process model (DPM) [12,[32][33][34] and the multiple trace theory of temporal preparation (MTP) [14,15]. Furthermore, recent studies have revealed valid features of the DPM and MTP that we have called the "recent view (RV)" [18,[46][47][48][49]. We, similar to previous studies [21,23,24], assumed that these models are applicable to the medium-term variable FP task used in the current study for discussing the possible mechanisms of the current results.…”

“…Background: The recent view (RV). Recent studies have supported a modified version of the MTP, where different memory traces have different influences on the FP and SE effects, incorporating the DPM's physiological suggestions [18,[46][47][48][49]. These studies have reproduced the dynamically varying RTs according to past experiences, supporting the MTP [46,47].…”

Implicitly learning when to be ready: From instances to categories

“…This fine-grained characterization of the development and persistence of memory-guided effects can help constrain models of temporal preparation. The gradual acquisition of differential preparation and its longevity throughout the Transfer phase illustrate how temporal preparation is affected by long-term memory and sluggishly adapts to changing environmental statistics (see also Crowe & Kent, 2019;Crowe, Los, Schindler, & Kent, 2021;Los et al, 2017;Mattiesing et al, 2017;Visalli et al, 2019;Visalli, Capizzi, Ambrosini, Kopp, & Vallesi, 2021). Many probability-driven models characterize preparation as guided by static representations of the current FP distribution (Janssen & Shadlen, 2005;Grabenhorst et al, 2019;Trillenberg et al, 2000;Vangkilde et al, 2013), foregoing the role of memory and learning.…”

Implicitly learning when to be ready: from instances to categories

“…This fine-grained characterization of the development and persistence of memory-guided effects can help constrain models of temporal preparation. The gradual acquisition of differential preparation and its longevity throughout the Transfer phase illustrate how temporal preparation is affected by long-term memory and sluggishly adapts to changing environmental statistics (see also Crowe & Kent, 2019;Crowe et al, 2021;Los et al, 2017;Mattiesing et al, 2017;Visalli et al, 2021;Visalli et al, 2019). Many probability-driven models characterize preparation as guided by static representations of the current FP distribution (Grabenhorst et al, 2019;Janssen & Shadlen, 2005;Trillenberg et al, 2000;Vangkilde et al, 2013), foregoing the role of memory and learning.…”