Effects of Number of Alternatives on the Psychological Refractoriness of an Extended Movement,

The single-channel prediction that delays in RT₂ should be proportional to RT₁ was examined by varying the number of alternatives (one, two, or three) in the primary response which was an extended arm swing at maximal speed. The second response was a thumb key release. Foreperiods were 2, 3, or 4 sec., and interstimulus intervals (ISIs) ranged from .10:50 sec. in .10-sec. steps. General support for the single-channel model was found in that RT₂ paralleled changes in RT₁. However, RT₂ was greater than predicted when the second signal (S₂) occurred during the execution of the primary response. In addition, while delays in RT₂ as a function of ISI – RT₁ showed corresponding differences between choice conditions, most values were greater than predicted. The deviations from the single-channel model appeared to be explained best in terms of a decrease in readiness to respond to the second signal as ISI lengthened.     

Are go/no-go tasks preferable to two-choice tasks in response time experiments with older adults?

Recent research has shown that, in response time (RT) tasks, the go/no-go response procedure produces faster (and less noisy) RTs and fewer errors than the two-choice response procedure in children, although these differences are substantially smaller in college-aged adults. Here we examined whether the go/no-go procedure can be preferred to the two-choice procedure in RT experiments with older adults (i.e. another population with slower and more error-prone responding than college-aged individuals). To that end, we compared these response procedures in two experiments with older adults (M_age?=?83 years): a visual word recognition task (lexical decision) and a perceptual task (numerosity discrimination). A group of young adults (M_age?=?31 years) served as a control. In the lexical decision experiment, results showed a go/no-go advantage in the mean RTs and in the error rates for words; however, this was not accompanied by less noisy RT data. The magnitude of the word-frequency effect was similar in the two response procedures. The numerosity discrimination experiment did not reveal any clear differences across response procedures, except that the RTs were noisier in the go/no-go procedure. Therefore, we found no compelling reasons why the go/no-go procedure should be preferred over the two-choice procedure in RT experiments with older adults.     

Refractoriness of on Extended Movement to Directional Change

An extended movement was used to compare the memory-drum and single-channel definitions of psychological refractoriness. The basic movement In response to the first signal (S₁) was a forward lunge and a concurrent arm swing through a target string. The response to the second signal (S₂) was a reversal of the original movement The interstimulus Interval (ISI) ranged from .10 – .70 sec. in .10-sec. steps. The hypothesis that refractoriness of the reversal movement would decrease as ISI shortened was confirmed by the fact that error frequencies decreased significantly and substantially with decreasing IS I. The availability of some residual capacity to deal with S₂ during the refractory period was also indicated by an examination of the relationship between RT₂ and the interval between S₂ and RT₁. This departure from the classical single-channel model shows some agreement with the neuromotor-programming theory.     

Response retrieval in a go/no-go priming-of-popout task

Priming of popout is the finding that singleton search is faster when features of a target and of nontargets are repeated across trials than when the features switch. Theoretical accounts suggest that intertrial repetition influences perceptual and attentional selection processes, episodic retrieval processes, or both. The present study combined a popout search task with a go/no-go task. In Experiment 1, the nontarget distractors in each display carried the go/no-go feature, and in Experiment 2, the texture of all items carried the go/no-go feature. Results showed that the go/no-go task moderated the intertrial repetition effects. In Experiment 1, the target color elicited retrieval of the preceding distractor color and associated no-go response, resulting in larger interference effects. In Experiment 2, the target color elicited retrieval of the preceding target color and no-go response, resulting in reduced facilitation effects. Additional results from both experiments showed that the colors in a search display also influenced target selection on the following trial. Taken together, the results of both experiments suggest that intertrial repetition influences both early selection and postselection retrieval processes.     

Effects of auditory stimulus intensity on response force in simple, go/no-go, and choice RT tasks

In four experiments, increasing the intensities of both relevant and irrelevant auditory stimuli was found to increase response force (RF) in simple, go/no-go, and choice reaction time (RT) tasks. These results raise problems for models that localize the effects of auditory intensity on purely perceptual processes, indicating instead that intensity also affects motor output processes under many circumstances. In Experiment 1, simple RT, go/no-go, and choice RT tasks were compared, using the same stimuli for all tasks. Auditory stimulus intensity affected both RT and RF, and these effects were not modulated by task. In Experiments 2-4, an irrelevant auditory accessory stimulus accompanied a relevant visual stimulus, and the go/no-go and choice tasks were used. The intensity of the irrelevant auditory accessory stimulus was found to affect RT and RF, although the sizes of these effects depended somewhat on the temporal predictability of the accessory stimulus.     

A comparison of generalization functions and frame of reference effects in different training paradigms

Six experiments were carried out to compare go/no-go and choice paradigms for studying the effects of intradimensional discrimination training on subsequent measures of stimulus generalization in human subjects. Specifically, the purpose was to compare the two paradigms as means of investigating generalization gradient forms and frame of reference effects. In Experiment 1, the stimulus dimension was visual intensity (brightness); in Experiment 2, it was line orientation (line-angle stimuli). After learning to respond (or to respond “right”) to stimulus value (SV) 4 and not to respond (or to respond “left”) to SV2 (in Experiment 1) or SV1 (in Experiment 2), the subjects were tested for generalization (recognition) with an asymmetrical set of values ranging from SV1 to SV11. Go/no-go training produced peaked gradients, whereas choice training produced sigmoid gradients. The asymmetrical testing resulted in a gradual shift of the peak of responding (go/no-go group) or in the point of subjective indifference (PSI; choice group) toward. the central value of the test series; thus, both paradigms revealed a frame of reference effect. The results were comparable for the quantitative (intensity) and the qualitative (line-angle) stimulus dimensions. Experiment 3 compared the go/no-go procedure with a yes/no procedure in which subjects responded “right” to SV4 and “left” to all other intensities and found no differences between these procedures. Thus the difference in gradient forms in go/no as opposed to (traditional) choice paradigms depends on whether one or two target stimuli are used in training. In Experiment 4, in which visual intensity was used, the shift in the PSI following choice training varied positively with the range of asymmetrical test stimuli employed. In Experiment 5, also with visual intensity, the magnitude of the peak shift following go/no-go training varied as a function of over representing a high or a low stimulus value during generalization testing. Experiment 6, with line angles, showed that the PSI following choice training varies in a similar way. The frame of reference effects obtained in these experiments are consistent with an adaptation-level model.     

A comparison of generalization functions and frame of reference effects in different training paradigms.

Six experiments were carried out to compare go/no-go and choice paradigms for studying the effects of intradimensional discrimination training on subsequent measures of stimulus generalization in human subjects. Specifically, the purpose was to compare the two paradigms as means of investigating generalization gradient forms and frame of reference effects. In Experiment 1, the stimulus dimension was visual intensity (brightness); in Experiment 2, it was line orientation (line-angle stimuli). After learning to respond (or to respond "right") to stimulus value (SV) 4 and not to respond (or to respond "left") to SV2 (in Experiment 1) or SV1 (in Experiment 2), the subjects were tested for generalization (recognition) with an asymmetrical set of values ranging from SV1 to SV11. Go/no-go training produced peaked gradients, whereas choice training produced sigmoid gradients. The asymmetrical testing resulted in a gradual shift of the peak of responding (go/no-go group) or in the point of subjective indifference (PSI; choice group) toward the central value of the test series; thus, both paradigms revealed a frame of reference effect. The results were comparable for the quantitative (intensity) and the qualitative (line-angle) stimulus dimensions. Experiment 3 compared the go/no-go procedure with a yes/no procedure in which subjects responded "right" to SV4 and "left" to all other intensities and found no differences between these procedures. Thus the difference in gradient forms in go/no as opposed to (traditional) choice paradigms depends on whether one or two target stimuli are used in training. In Experiment 4, in which visual intensity was used, the shift in the PSI following choice training varied positively with the range of asymmetrical test stimuli employed. In Experiment 5, also with visual intensity, the magnitude of the peak shift following go/no-go training varied as a function of overrepresenting a high or a low stimulus value during generalization testing. Experiment 6, with line angles, showed that the PSI following choice training varies in a similar way. The frame of reference effects obtained in these experiments are consistent with an adaptation-level model.     

A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect

Simon effects might partly reflect stimulus-triggered response activation. According to the response-discrimination hypothesis, however, stimulus-triggered response activation shows up in Simon effects only when stimulus locations match the top-down selected spatial codes used to discriminate between alternative responses. Five experiments support this hypothesis. In Experiment 1, spatial codes of each response differed by horizontal and vertical axis position, yet one axis discriminated between alternative responses, whereas the other did not. Simon effects resulted for targets on discriminating axes only. In Experiment 2, both spatial axes discriminated between responses, and targets on both axes produced Simon effects. In Experiment 3, Simon effects resulted for a spatial choice-reaction task but not for a go/no-go task. Even in the go/no-go task, a Simon effect was restored when a two-choice reaction task preceded the go/no-go task (Experiment 4) or when participants initiated trials with responses spatially discriminated from the go response (Experiment 5).     

The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting

Response selection in task shifting was explored using a go/no-go methodology. The no-go signal occurred unpredictably with stimulus onset so that all trials required task preparation but only go trials required response selection. Experiment 1 showed that shift costs were absent after no-go trials, indicating that response processes are crucial for shift costs. In Experiment 2, backward inhibition was absent after no-go trials. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that response selection, rather than execution, causes backward inhibition. All 4 experiments showed effects of preparation time in go trials, suggesting that advance preparation must have also occurred in no-go trials. The authors concluded that inhibition of irrelevant task sets arises only at response selection and that residual shift costs reflect such persisting inhibition.     

Effects of time and event uncertainty upon sequential information processing

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the psychological refractory period (PRP), a delay induced into the second of two reaction times (RT) when the interstimulus interval (ISI) is short. In Experiment1, time and event uncertainty were factorially varied by providing or not providing S with foreknowledge of the ISI and the order in which the two events would occur, respectively. ISIs of0, 50, 100, 200, and400 msec were used. Time and event uncertainty produced independent degradation of both RTs. Also, the second RT (RT ₂ ) was delayed at50 msec ISI when both time and event certainty were present. Experiment 2 attempted to replicate this latter finding using ISIs of0, 25, 50, 75, and100 msec. Delays in RT ₂ were found for the middle three values of ISI. These results were interpreted as supporting a modified single channel theory of the PRP.     

The influence of action on visual search: behavioral response toward stimuli modifies the selection process

In five experiments, we investigated how simple actions (as assessed via a go/no-go task) influence visual search. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants responded (go) when a color name (cue) matched a colored shape (prime), and did not respond (no-go) when they mismatched. Participants then searched a visual array for a tilted line, either embedded within the prime (valid prime) or within a different shape of a different color (invalid prime). For go trials, but not for no-go trials, the validity of the prime influenced search behavior so that faster RTs were observed when the prime was valid as compared with when it was invalid. In Experiment 3, the go/no-go task was based on the shape of the prime. The color of the prime, but not the shape, was re-presented in the search array, and its validity produced a similar pattern as in Experiments 1-2. In Experiment 4, participants responded when the color name and prime mismatched. Reaction times indicated that attentional set had an influence on the validity differences in Experiments 1-3. In Experiment 5, the go/no-go task was based on whether a digit matched a digit appearing within the prime. Go trials produced similar validity effects as observed in Experiments 1-3.     

Response selection and response execution in task switching: evidence from a go-signal paradigm

The present study used a go/no-go signal delay (GSD) to explore the role of response-related processes in task switching. A go/no-go signal was presented at either 100 ms or 1,500 ms after the stimulus. Participants were encouraged to use the GSD for response selection and preparation. The data indicate that the opportunity to select and prepare a response (i.e., long GSD) resulted in a substantial reduction of task-shift costs (Experiment 1) and n-2 task-repetition costs (i.e., backward inhibition; Experiment 2) in the current trial. These results suggest that interference from the preceding trial can be resolved during response selection and preparation. Furthermore, the shift costs and the n-2 repetition costs after no-go trials with long GSD (i.e., response selection but no execution) were markedly smaller than after go trials. These findings suggest that the interference that gives rise to shift costs and n-2 repetition costs is related not solely to response selection but also to response execution. Thus, the present study demonstrates dissociable contributions of response selection and response execution to interference effects in task switching.     

Backward crosstalk effects in psychological refractory period paradigms: effects of second-task response types on first-task response latencies

Three experiments using psychological refractory period (PRP) tasks documented backward crosstalk effects in which the nature of the second-task response influenced the first-task response latencies. Such effects are difficult to explain within currently popular bottleneck models, according to which second-task response selection does not begin until first-task response selection has finished. In Experiments 1 and 2, the first of the PRP tasks required a choice reaction time (RT) response, whereas the second task required a go/no-go decision. Task 1 responses were faster when the second task required a go response than when it required a no-go response. Experiment 3 showed that Task 1 RTs were also influenced by the complexity of second-task responses. These backward crosstalk effects indicate that significant second-task processing is carried out in time to influence first-task responses and thus challenge strictly serial bottleneck models.     

Impact of contingency manipulations on accessory stimulus effects

Accessory tone stimuli facilitate response performance despite being irrelevant for the current task. In order to investigate which processes are affected by accessory stimuli, we presented accessory tones in a simple response time (RT) task while varying the contingencies between accessory stimulation and either responses(Experiment 1) or stimulus conditions (Experiment 2). Accessory tones speeded up responding to a larger degree when they were conjointly presented within go compared with no-go trials. In contrast, contingency variation with stimulus conditions did not alter the impact of accessory stimuli. Additionally, accessory tones increased response force. Thus, we conclude that in simple RT tasks accessory tones influence response-related stages such as response selection and response execution rather than perceptual processes.     

Go/No-Go范式中非反应手状态对Simon效应性质的影响

为了探讨非反应手对标准Simon任务改装的go/no-go任务的影响,被试只对其中一种颜色进行按键反应,通过指导语来操控非反应手的状态,结果发现：(1)实验一中当不提醒非反应手如何放置时,不会产生Simon效应;(2) 实验二中要求非反应手放在固定的桌面位置上,产生了视觉运动Simon效应,其随反应时的增大而减小;(3) 实验三中要求非反应手放在固定的非反应键上,却产生了认知Simon效应,其随反应时的增大而增大。这说明非反应手的状态影响Simon效应的产生及其性质。     

Bimanual response grouping in dual-task paradigms

In three experiments we measured response time (RT) and peak force (PF) to investigate the grouping of left- and right-hand key press responses in a dual-task paradigm involving two independent go/no-go tasks. Within each task, a go stimulus within one of two modalities (i.e., visual versus auditory) required a response by one hand. In Experiment 1 with simultaneous go stimuli in the two tasks, responses appeared to be grouped in approximately 75–80% of trials, compared with nearly 100% grouping in a single-task condition requiring bimanual responses to the onset of any stimulus in either modality. In Experiment 2 with stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 0–400 ms between the two go stimuli, response grouping clearly declined as SOA increased, although some grouping was still evident even at the longest SOA. The same pattern was observed in Experiment 3 with the same range of SOAs but unpredictable stimulus order, suggesting that grouping is not strongly dependent on prior knowledge of the likely response order. These results emphasize the pervasiveness of response grouping in bimanual dual-task RT paradigms and provide useful clues as to its nature.     

Bimanual response grouping in dual-task paradigms

In three experiments we measured response time (RT) and peak force (PF) to investigate the grouping of left- and right-hand key press responses in a dual-task paradigm involving two independent go/no-go tasks. Within each task, a go stimulus within one of two modalities (i.e., visual versus auditory) required a response by one hand. In Experiment 1 with simultaneous go stimuli in the two tasks, responses appeared to be grouped in approximately 75-80% of trials, compared with nearly 100% grouping in a single-task condition requiring bimanual responses to the onset of any stimulus in either modality. In Experiment 2 with stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 0-400 ms between the two go stimuli, response grouping clearly declined as SOA increased, although some grouping was still evident even at the longest SOA. The same pattern was observed in Experiment 3 with the same range of SOAs but unpredictable stimulus order, suggesting that grouping is not strongly dependent on prior knowledge of the likely response order. These results emphasize the pervasiveness of response grouping in bimanual dual-task RT paradigms and provide useful clues as to its nature.     

New variations of intrahemispheric and interhemispheric processing indexed by the dimond paradigm

We report 2 experiments designed to demonstrate that unilateral tachistoscopic stimulation would yield a response time (RT) advantage over bilateral stimulation in a simple experiment, whereas the opposite pattern would occur in a complex version of the same task, as predicted by the intrahemispheric resource limitation model of Banich and colleagues. Experiment 1 was a go/no-go task in which participants had to press a key when two shapes (circles or squares) were identical on the computer screen. A unilateral field advantage was obtained that was accentuated in several task conditions that yielded overall longer RTs, mostly in the bilateral condition. Experiment 2 was similar but required a more complex judgment: The go trials were to 2 stimuli identical on 1 dimension (shape or color) but not both or neither. The RTs were significantly and substantially longer than in Experiment 1 and exhibited a nonsignificant bilateral field advantage, which differed significantly from the unilateral field advantage obtained in Experiment 1. These results support the intrahemispheric resource limitation model of Banich and colleagues. However, several within-experiment effects are in direct opposition to this model and are best explained as limitations of commissural relay of perceptual information.     

No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation

It has recently been shown that the cost associated with switching tasks is eliminated following ‘no-go’ trials, in which response selection is not completed, suggesting that the switch cost depends on response selection. However, no-go trials may also affect switch costs by interfering with the effects of task preparation that precede response selection. To test this hypothesis we evaluated switch costs following standard go trials with those following two types of non-response trials: no-go trials, for which a stimulus is presented that indicates no response should be made (Experiment 1); and cue-only trials in which no stimulus is presented following the task cue (Experiment 2). We hypothesized that eliminating no-go stimuli would reveal effects of task preparation on the switch cost in cue-only trials. We found no switch cost following no-go trials (Experiment 1), but a reliable switch cost in cue-only trials (i.e., when no-go stimuli were removed; Experiment 2). We conclude that no-go trials can modulate the switch cost, independent of their effect on response selection, by interfering with task preparation, and that the effects of task preparation on switch cost are more directly assessed by cue-only trials.     

Transfer of response codes from choice-response to go/no-go tasks

The present study investigated the conditions for observing the Simon effect in go/no-go tasks. The Simon effect denotes faster and more accurate responses when irrelevant stimulus location and response location correspond than when they do not correspond. In four experiments, participants performed both in a choice-response task (CRT) and in a go/no-go task, and we varied the order and the similarity of the tasks. In the CRT, participants pressed a left key to one stimulus colour and a right key to another stimulus colour; in the go/no-go task, participants pressed one (e.g., left) key to one stimulus colour and refrained from responding to the other stimulus colour. As expected, Simon effects were consistently observed in the CRT. In contrast, Simon effects in the go/no-go task were only observed when it followed the CRT and when the mapping of stimulus colours to response locations was preserved between tasks (i.e., in Experiment 4). Results suggest that transfer of a particular S–R rule including response location from the CRT to the go/no-go task was responsible for the Simon effect in the latter task. In general, results are consistent with a response-discrimination account of the Simon effect.