The psychological refractory period of stopping

The author examined whether the act of control of stopping is subject to the psychological refractory period (PRP) and whether stopping causes a PRP for the processing of subsequent stimuli. The task was to execute or to stop a rapid finger tapping. PRP interference was predicted for double-stimulation trials, in which 2 signals to tap or stop were presented in rapid succession. The experiments showed that stopping ongoing action is subject to and produces PRP interference similar to starting. Responses to signals to continue an ongoing action do not produce PRP interference. The results suggest that selection or initiation of new responses, but not mere response choice, constituted the processing bottleneck that caused the PRP in the present task. Further results indicate that the inhibition of not-yet-executed actions, in contrast to action termination, does not suffer PRP interference and that response inhibitions and terminations should be distinguished. ((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved)     

The psychological refractory period and vertex evoked potentials

The averaged sensory evoked potential (EP) was recorded from the scalp (vertex to mastoid) in a psychological refractory period experiment in which 12 young adults participated. Reaction times (RTs) were measured to either both or only the second of pairs of stimuli, in different trial blocks, with inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) of 100, 200, 300 and 400 msec occurring in random sequence. EPs were recorded at each ISI. No latency changes could be found in the prominent non-specific components (P1-N1-P2) of the EP to stimulus 2 even at ISIs where the RT was substantially delayed. Thus the notions that the RT2 delay is due to occupation of a single channel central processor by S1 and that non-specific EP components reflect the time course of information processing in underlying neural tissue, do not lend each other mutual support. Furthermore, as profound amplitude refractoriness in components P1-N1 and N1-P2 persisted at ISIs where RT was as fast or faster than simple RT, there appears to be a dissociation between “psychological refractoriness” and “physiological refractoriness”. The implications of these results are discussed.     

Parallel processing and the psychological refractory period

The serial processor theory proposed by Welford is the traditional explanation of the delay in responding to the second stimulus presented in psychological refractory period paradigm experiments. This paper reviews results which do not accord either with that theory or with later modifications of it by Smith and Tolkmitt. To explain these results a model is proposed which contains three propositions: (a) parallel processing of concurrent stimuli, (b) fixed total processing capacity, (c) capacity allocation either dependent on the relative difficulty of the stimuli or set by the subject according to experimental instructions. The predictions of this model for the effects of stimulus difficulty and interstimulus interval on reaction time and interresponse interval are computed. These predictions are compared with those of other parallel processing models of the psychological refractory period which have been proposed by Herman and Kantowitz, by Kahneman and by Keele.     

Psychological refractory period in introverts and extraverts

The present study was designed to explore extraversion-related differences in the psychological refractory period (PRP). PRP refers to a bottleneck of information processing that becomes evident when participants are required to respond to two signals (S1 and S2) presented in rapid succession. If this capacity limit of premotor information processing is essential for differences in speed of information processing between introverts and extraverts, magnitude of the PRP effect should vary as a function of extraversion. Due to the failure of previous attempts to establish extraversion-related differences in the PRP effect, we also obtained lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs). For this purpose, 63 introverted and 63 extraverted female participants were tested with a standard PRP design. Extraverts responded faster to S2 and exhibited shorter stimulus-locked LRP latencies compared to introverts. Although a general PRP effect could be shown at the behavioral and psychophysiological level, there was no indication for any extraversion-related differences in PRP. Thus, extraversion-related differences in speed of information processing at the premotor level appear unlikely to originate from individual differences in the capacity limits underlying the PRP phenomenon. Furthermore, our findings provide converging evidence for the notion that extraversion-related individual differences in processing speed depend on specific task demands.     

The influence of training on the attentional blink and psychological refractory period

A growing body of research suggests that dual-task interference in sensory consolidation (e.g., the attentional blink, AB) and response selection (e.g., the psychological refractory period, PRP) stems from a common central bottleneck of information processing. With regard to response selection, it is well known that training reduces dual-task interference. We tested whether training that is known to be effective for response selection can also reduce dual-task interference in sensory consolidation. Over two experiments, performance on a PRP paradigm (Exp. 1) and on AB paradigms (differing in their stimuli and task demands, Exps. 1 and 2) was examined after participants had completed a relevant training regimen (T1 practice for both paradigms), an irrelevant training regimen (comparable sensorimotor training, not related to T1 for both tasks), a visual-search training regimen (Exp. 2 only), or after participants had been allocated to a no-training control group. Training that had shown to be effective for reducing dual-task interference in response selection was also found to be effective for reducing interference in sensory consolidation. In addition, we found some evidence that training benefits transferred to the sensory consolidation of untrained stimuli. Collectively, these findings show that training benefits can transfer across cognitive operations that draw on the central bottleneck in information processing. These findings have implications for theories of the AB and for the design of cognitive-training regimens that aim to produce transferable training benefits.     

On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies

Within the context of the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm, we developed a general theoretical framework for deciding when it is more efficient to process two tasks in serial and when it is more efficient to process them in parallel. This analysis suggests that a serial mode is more efficient than a parallel mode under a wide variety of conditions and thereby suggests that ubiquitous evidence of serial processing in PRP tasks could result from performance optimization rather than from a structural bottleneck. The analysis further suggests that the experimenter-selected distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) influences the relative efficiency of the serial and parallel modes, with a preponderance of short SOAs favoring a parallel mode. Experiments varying the distribution of SOAs were conducted, and the results suggest that there is a shift from a more serial mode to a more parallel mode as the likelihood of short SOAs increases.     

Intersensory effects in the psychological refractory period

Two experiments examined reaction time (RT) to each of two stimulus events separated by short interstimulus intervals (1SI). The essential contrast was RT to the second visual signal, RT₂, in auditory-visual (A-V) vs visual-visual (V-V) sequences. With response, certain pairings in Experiment 1, an effect apparently demonstrating a single-channel process (Welford, 1952), was noted. RT₂ was generally faster for A-V as opposed to V-V sequences especially when Ss were uncertain as to the sequence that would occur. At 0-msec ISI, the RT₂ difference between sequences approached the RT! difference. More rapid RT₂ to A-V sequences was also observed with go vs no-go pairings in Experiment 2 when the initial event was a go signal. However, the RT difference disappeared upon error correction, making the RT₂ sequence difference of questionable relevance to the hypothetical single-channel process. RT₂ was more rapid following a null no-go signal when the no-go signal was contrasted with a visual as opposed to auditory go signal. The latter effect was independent of error and is consistent with channel-switching theory (Kristofferson, 1967).     

A revision of the psychological refractory period

A brief review of the major psychological refractory period (PRP) theories reveals that they have lost their original objective, i.e., to explain human information processing under rapid sequential stimulation. Conventional data interpretation has restricted attention to delay of reaction times as a result of interstimulus interval (ISI) variation. This form of data interpretation fails to capture important performance aspects under double-stimulation, e.g., the phenomenon that stimulus complexity affects the processing rate. Effects of stimulus rate and complexity are better analyzed in terms of reaction times as well as interresponse intervals (IRI). If this is done, behavioral phenomena emerge that cannot be explained within the frame of any of the existing PRP theories. To account for these newly revealed phenomena a processing interrupt model is introduced which is based on three major hypotheses: single-channel processor, additive stages, and perceptual interrupt facility.     

Visual form recognition threshold and the psychological refractory period

Two experiments studied the effect of a reaction time response (RT) on visual form recognition threshold when the temporal interval separating the RT stimulus and the recognition stimulus was short. In Experiment 1 an initial RT response to an auditory signal did not impair the subsequent forced-choice visual form recognition threshold. Interstimulus intervals (ISI) of 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 msec were used; S was always aware of the ISI under test. In Experiment 2 a visual stimulus was used to elicit the R T response; this shift to an intramodal stimulus did not alter the recognition threshold. These data were interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that two stimulus events can be processed simultaneously even when the temporal interval between them is short.     

Sensitivity and decisional factors in the psychological refractory period

Three trained Ss responded to a pair of events presented at fixed interstimulus intervals (ISIs) of 33, 67, and 100 msec. Each event was the independent presence of a visual stimulus (S-P) or its absence (S-A), to which Ss were to respond or not, with a set for speed over accuracy. The probabilities of Sop occurrence [P(S)] to each of the events were varied. Pretrial verbal reports or behavioral hypotheses (BHs) werealso obtained. P(S), ISI, BH, and order (first vs second event) were all generally determinants of both RT to Sop and inhibition probability to S-A. However, when the RT data were corrected for inhibition probability, order was the only systematic effect that remained. The results were discussed in terms of approaches to the psychological refractory period derived from signal detection theory involving differential sensitivity as opposed to criterion.     

The ultrasonic postejaculatory vocalization and the postejaculatory refractory period of the male rat.

After ejaculation, the male rat emits an ultrasonic (22-kHz.) vocalization. This sound is produced repeatedly until about three fourths of the postejaculatory interval has elapsed. In this study, the occurrence of the vocalization was described, and physiological and behavioral evidence was presented that the postejaculatory vocalization reflects an inhibitory state that underlies the postejaculatory refractory period. The vocalization period was characterized by a predominance of slow-wave, spindling, sleep-like electroencephalographic activity. Electrical shock was able to stimulate mating responses only after the cessation of the vocalization period. It was concluded that an absolute refractory period of the postejaculatory interval lasts until the end of the vocalization period and that the time from the termination of the vocalization until the resumption of mating is a relative refractory period.     

The psychological refractory period as a function of performance of a first response

Proponents of a “single channel” theory of the psychological refractory period have not specified whether the single channel occupies only the decision component of the response selection, only the motor or response component, or both. In this experiment, the delay in the RT to the second of two successively presented stimuli was examined as a function of whether or not an overt motor response was made to the first stimulus, keeping the decision component constant. It was found that in both conditions RT₂ was delayed, suggesting that the decision component was a part of the single channel. However, RT₂ was delayed by a significantly greater amount if a motor response was required, indicating that the motor component is part of the single channel as well. Implications of the results for an expectancy theory of the psychological refractory period are discussed.     

The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm

In target detection tasks, responses are faster when displays have 2 targets (redundant-targets effect; RTE) and slower when they have no targets (nontargets effect; NTE) relative to displays with a single target. The psychological refractory period paradigm was used to localize these effects. In Experiment 1, participants classified tones as high or low and then classified letters as targets or nontargets after a short or long stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). The magnitudes of the RTE and NTE did not depend on SOA. In Experiment 2, the order of the tasks was reversed, and at short SOAs the RTE and NTE had similar magnitudes for both tone discrimination and target detection responses. These findings suggest that the RTE and NTE arise during response selection. Interactive effects of tone pitch with the number and type of target features were also observed, and these were tentatively interpreted as synesthetic effects.     

Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm

Bottleneck models of psychological refractory period (PRP) tasks suggest that a Task 1 response should be unaffected by the Task 2 response in the same trial, because selection of the former finishes before selection of the latter begins. Contrary to this conception, the authors found backward response-level crosstalk effects in which Task 2 response force requirements influenced the force-time dynamics of Task 1 responses. Specifically, Task 2 required a hard or soft keypress response. Task 1 responses were harder when the upcoming Task 2 response was to press hard rather than soft, suggesting some activation of Task 2 response parameters before Task 1 processing reached the final ballistic motor output stage. A 3rd experiment using a flankers paradigm showed that this effect did not arise from automatic activation of responses by the stimuli associated with hard and soft responses. This backward response-level crosstalk extends previous findings of backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm by showing that crosstalk can affect motor output as well as response time and can arise even when the 2 tasks being performed are not semantically related.     

Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm

The authors examined the role of online order control in the psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm. In the first 2 experiments, participants switched between color-letter and letter-color orders so that subtask order was isolated as the only element being switched. The results indicated that order switching impaired the 2 PRP responses and modulated the PRP effect. Importantly, these effects were reduced by advance preparation, demonstrating that order representation was activated before the subtasks themselves. Preparation for subtask order did not reflect preparation for hand order, as shown in Experiment 3. In addition, there was no evidence that subtask order information dissipated between trials. The relevance of the results to theories of the PRP paradigm and task switching is discussed.