Evoked potentials in reaction time with a variable foreperiod

The reaction times (RTs) of 12 subjects were recorded in a design where a visual or auditory warning signal preceded an auditory RT signal by one of four short foreperiods 500, 750, 1000 or 1250 ms long, which occured in a random sequence. For the 16 trials at each foreperiod, with each modality of warning signal, the average of the 2-s long EEG samples following the warning signal was computed so that the record showed the scalp recorded (vertex--left mastoid) evoked potentials (EPs) to both warning and RT signals, and also the contingent negative variation or expectancy wave occurring during the foreperiod.

Differences between RTs with different foreperiods were not reflected in negatively correlated differences in the amplitude of the RT signal EPs, taking the major positive going deflection between peaks N1 and P2 at mean latencies of 126 and 231 msec after the RT signal. Furthermore RT signal EPs preceded by a warning signal were highly attenuated in amplitude relative to control EPs which were not preceded by a warning signal, whether or not an RT response was required. This was despite the fact that alerted RTs were slightly faster than non-alerted RTs, so that these findings contradict previous findings associating augmented EPs with responding versus not responding and with speeded RTs.

However, it was also found that RT signal EP amplitudes were greater with the more effective modality of warning signal than the less effective, which was consistent with previous findings. The divergence from previous findings when comparing EPs preceded by a warning with those having no prior warning is tentatively accounted for in terms of persisting physiological refractoriness following the warning signal EP.     

Response force is sensitive to the temporal uncertainty of response stimuli

Three experiments examined whether temporal uncertainty about the delivery of a response stimulus affects response force in a simple reaction time (RT) situation. All experiments manipulated the foreperiod; that is, the interval between a warning signal and the response stimulus. In the constant condition, foreperiod length was kept constant over a block of trials but changed from block to block. In the variable condition, foreperiod length varied randomly from trial to trial. A visual warning and response stimulus were used in Experiment 1; response force decreased with foreperiod length in the variable condition, but increased in the constant condition. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that responses are less forceful when the temporal occurrence of the response stimulus is predictable. In a second experiment with an auditory warning signal and a response stimulus, response force was less sensitive to foreperiod manipulations. The third experiment manipulated both the modality and the intensity of the response signal and employed a tactile warning signal. This experiment indicated that neither the modality nor the intensity of the response signal affects the relation between response force and foreperiod length. An extension of Näätänen’s (1971) motor-readiness model accounts for the main results.     

Does increasing the warning signal intensity decrease or increase simple reaction time?

The purpose of the study was to reconcile the contradictory evidence reporting either a shortening or lengthening of the simple reaction time (RT) as a function of the intensity of a warning signal. The lengthening of auditory RT is obtained when short visual or auditory warning signals are of constant intensity within a session and succeeded by a fore-period. Visual RT did not vary under similar circumstances. There was no effect when a warning signal of constant intensity overlapped in time with the response stimulus. The shortening of RT occurred with auditory warning signals of variable intensity and overlapping in time with the response stimulus. The shortening of RT was interpreted as facilitation-by-arousal. The lengthening of RT is a contextual effect but the data do not support accounts based on sensory-neural adaptation or criterion changes.     

Reaction time and temporal serial judgment: corroboration or dissociation?]

Dissociations between a motor response and the subject's verbal report have been reported from various experiments that investigated special experimental effects (e.g., metacontrast or induced motion). To examine whether similar dissociations can also be observed under standard experimental conditions, we compared reaction times (RT) and temporal order judgments (TOJ) to visual and auditory stimuli of three intensity levels. Data were collected from six subjects, each of which served for nine sessions. The results showed a strong, highly significant modality dissociation: While RTs to auditory stimuli were shorter than RTs to visual stimuli, the TOJ data indicated longer processing times for auditory than for visual stimuli. This pattern was found over the whole range of intensities investigated. Light intensity had similar effects on RT and TOJ, while there was a marginally significant tendency of tone intensity to affect RT more strongly than TOJ. It is concluded that modality dissociation is an example of "direct parameter specification", where the pathway from stimulus to response in the simple RT experiment is (at least partially) separate from the pathway that leads to a conscious, reportable representation. Two variants of this notion and alternatives to it are discussed.     

Dual payoff band control of reaction time

The location of a S’s simple reaction time (RT) distribution can be controlled by differential reinforcement of RTs that fall within specified temporal limits called a payoff band. Both humans and monkeys can gradually shift the location of a single RT distribution over hundreds of milliseconds in accord with changing payoff band requirements. This study establishes that trained human Ss can also accurately shift theft response latencies back and forth between two different RT distributions when the payoff band is changed from trial to trial. On each trial, the color of the warning stimulus indicated which of two payoff bands would be in effect when the S reacted to a light flashed 1,500 msec later. The RT distributions produced under the condition of random trial-to-trial switching between two payoff bands were the same as the low-variability RT distributions produced when only one payoff band was in effect over a long series of trials.     

Attentional bias toward low-intensity stimuli: an explanation for the intensity dissociation between reaction time and temporal order judgment?

If two stimuli need different times to be processed, this difference should in principle be reflected both by response times (RT) and by judgments of their temporal order (TOJ). However, several dissociations have been reported between RT and TOJ, e.g., RT is more affected than TOJ when stimulus intensity decreases. One account for these dissociations is to assume differences in the allocation of attention induced by the two tasks. To test this hypothesis, different distributions of attention were induced in the present study between two stimulus positions (above and below fixation). Only bright stimuli appeared in one position and either bright or dim stimuli in the other. In the two RT experiments, participants had to respond to every stimulus appearing in one of the two positions. Reaction times to bright stimuli were faster when they appeared in the position where dim stimuli were likely to occur. This finding suggests that the allocation of attention was adapted to the asymmetrical arrangement of stimuli, not suggested by explicit instruction. In the two TOJ experiments, the temporal order of stimuli appearing in the two positions had to be judged. Although bright stimuli appearing at the bright-and-dim location were judged to be earlier, this effect was small and insignificant. Further, the intensity dissociation between RT and TOJ was insensitive to random vs blockwise presentations of intensities, therefore was not modified by attentional preferences. Thus, asymmetrical arrangement of stimuli has an impact on the allocation of attention, but only in the RT task. Therefore dissociations between TOJ and response times cannot be accounted for by an attentional bias in the TOJ task but probably by different use of temporal information in the two tasks.     

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.     

The time course of prepration

The time course of the adjustments triggered by a warning signal was studied by measuring choice reaction times (RTs) at different predictable foreperiods after such a signal. Before the warning signal, a high time uncertainty situation was created by imposing either a long constant foreperiod of 5 sec. or one varying in the range 1.5 to 5 sec. The warning signal was a click. Foreperiods ranging from 0 to 300 millisec. were used in different blocks of trials. The stimulus was the onset of one of two lamps calling for the pressing of one of two keys. A control condition, without click, was used also. RTs were found to decrease continuously when the forperiod was increased from 0 to 100-150 millisec. The click delivered simultaneously with the stimulus permitted reactions significantly faster than in the control condition. It is concluded (a) that the latency of preparation can be much shorter than the 2 to 4 sec. reported by Woodrow; (b) that the warning signal can be used as a time cue to start preparatory adjustments without starting a refractory period of the order of magnitude found in experiments with pairs of successive reactions, and thus that such refractory periods are not the inevitable cost of paying attention to a signal. There is also some suggestion that in this situation the click not only triggers preparatory adjustments, but also causes an immediate facilitation of the reaction to the visual stimulus.     

Crossmodal temporal discrimination: assessing the predictions of a general pacemaker-counter model

In this study, an extended pacemaker-counter model was applied to crossmodal temporal discrimination. In three experiments, subjects discriminated between the durations of a constant standard stimulus and a variable comparison stimulus. In congruent trials, both stimuli were presented in the same sensory modality (i.e., both visual or both auditory), whereas in incongruent trials, each stimulus was presented in a different modality. The model accounts for the finding that temporal discrimination depends on the presentation order of the sensory modalities. Nevertheless, the model fails to explain why temporal discrimination was much better with congruent than with incongruent trials. The discussion considers possibilities to accommodate the model to this and other shortcomings.     

Response time to the second of two signals following varied vs constant intersignal intervals

The Ss made choice responses under three experimental conditions: (1) a variable interval between the warning signal and the signal to respond, (2) a constant interval between the warning signal and the signal to respond, and (3) omission of the warning signal. With variable intersignal intervals (lSI), response time (RT) was inversely related to lSI at least when the latter was in the 10 to 225 msec range. When lSI was constant its duration had no perceptible effect on RT. RT tended to be shorter with constant lSI. independent of its duration, than when the warning signal was omitted altogether.     

On the peculiarity of simple reaction time

Two experiments are reported in which high-compatibility reaction time (RT) tasks were performed with, and without, a concurrent secondary task. In both experiments, the secondary task interfered to a greater extent with simple RT than with choice RT. In fact, the effect of adding a secondary task was to eliminate the advantage of simple RT over two-alternative-choice RT. Previous studies of this phenomenon employed a task in which subjects raised a finger when it received tactile stimulation, while engaging in continuous reading aloud. The present experiments show that the effect can be obtained using a different stimulus modality (vision) as well as other responses (vocal) and secondary tasks (shadowing, auditory step-tracking). The paradigm provides a means of isolating preparatory processes that are peculiar to the simple RT task.     

An alertness decrement hypothesis of response inhibition to repeatedly presented stimuli

Both inhibitory and facilitative effects of repeated stimulus presentation have been observed. Two-factor theory attributes both kinds of effects to changes in specific components of attention. The theory claims that repeated exposure (a) decreases the alerting capacity of a stimulus and (b) facilitates encoding. The purpose of the present research was to provide further evidence that alertness decrement underlies the inhibitory effects of stimulus repetition. Adults were exposed to 30 presentations of a colored circle prior to performing a choice-reaction time (RT) task on which the targets were the familiarized stimulus and a novel stimulus. A warning signal occurred at one of three intervals prior to target onset. It was predicted from the literature on the temporal characteristics of alertness that the relative speed of responding to the familiarized stimulus would vary as a function of the warning signal-target interval. As predicted, responses to the familiarized stimulus were (a) slower than to the novel stimulus at intervals of 0 and 2,500 ms, but (b) faster than to the novel stimulus at 450 ms. The convergence of these findings with the alertness literature suggests an alertness decrement interpretation of response decrements to repeatedly presented stimuli.     

Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks

Three experiments examined sequential effects in choice reaction time tasks. On each trial, a right/left positional judgment was made to a either a pure tone or a luminance increment in a visual array of box elements. In the first two experiments, a preparatory signal was presented prior to each imperative signal to indicate the relevant stimulus modality. At a short stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the preparatory and the imperative signal (i.e., 60 msec), subjects were quicker to repeat the same response than to change their response when presented with successive tones, although no such repetition effect occurred on the visual target trials. Subjects were impaired if the stimulus modality changed across successive trials regardless of the modality of the target. At a longer SOA (i.e., 500 msec), these sequential effects were abolished; subjects were assumed to be able to prepare for the relevant modality because of the presentation of the preparatory signal. When the preparatory signals were omitted, in a final experiment, the modality-switching costs were still evident, but now inhibition of return occurred on both the auditory and the visual target trials-subjects were now impaired in responding when the target reappeared at its immediately previous location. It seems, therefore, that the repetition effect and modality-switching effects do dissociate. The data revealed clear differences between orienting attention to a particular spatial locale and focusing attention to a particular sensory modality.     

Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance

Performance decrements attributed to mental fatigue have been found to be especially pronounced in tasks that involve the voluntary control of attention. Here we explored whether mental fatigue from prolonged time on task (TOT) also impairs temporal preparation for speeded action in a simple reaction-time task. Temporal preparation is enabled by a warning signal presented before the imperative stimulus and usually results in shorter reaction time (RT). When the delay between warning and imperative stimuli - the foreperiod (FP) - varies between trials, responses are faster with longer FPs. This pattern has been proposed to arise from either voluntary attentional processes (temporal orienting) or automatic trial-to-trial learning (trace conditioning). The former account suggests a selective RT increase on long-FP trials with fatigue; the latter account suggests no such change. Over a work period of 51 min, we found the typical increase in overall RT but no selective RT increase after long FPs. This additivity indicates that TOT-induced mental fatigue generally reduces cognitive efficiency but leaves temporal preparation under time uncertainty unaffected. We consider this result more consistent with the trace-conditioning account of temporal preparation.     

Stimulus intensity and foreperiod effects in intersensory facilitation

Intersensory facilitation refers to the more rapid reaction time (RT) to a target in one modality and an accessory stimulus in a different modality compared to a RT to the target alone. Prior studies suggest two processes contribute to the phenomenon, termed the preparatory state and energy integration which refer to the action of accessory stimulation in providing forewarning and intensifying the reaction signal, respectively. Experiment I factorially varied foreperiod duration, light (target) intensity and tone (accessory) intensity in a discriminative RT task. The results were that foreperiod (preparatory state) and intensity (energy integration) effects were additive, implying that they affected separate processing stages. Accessory stimulus intensity affected false alarm rate on catch trials. This suggests that energy integration involves a form of response bias (increased likelihood of responding) and not facilitation (more rapid information processing). Experiment II indicated that comparable energy integration effects obtain with tone as target and light as accessory, as well as vice versa. The findings further indicated that RT to a bisensory pairing is more rapid when attention is directed to the more potent member of the pair.     

Stimulus array onset as a preparatory signal in attentional selection

Warning signals enhance psychomotor performance by optimising preparation for the arrival of an event. Recent evidence, however, suggests that a warning signal can also disrupt attentional preparation by interfering with the process of preparing. It was hypothesised that a warning signal consisting of a change to the task-relevant items (array onset) may be more effective than a traditional warning signal consisting of the arrival, or removal, of a bar-cue which is independent of the task array. In three experiments array onset was a more effective warning signal than the bar-cue because reaction times were significantly faster without an increase in errors. In addition, an auditory warning signal resulted in faster reaction time than the bar-cue but in performance equivalent to that with an onset warning signal. Thus, the superiority of an auditory warning signal, reported by Davis and Green, was not found, when the interference of the visual warning signal with preparation was reduced. These results suggest that a visual warning signal consisting of a change to the stimulus array is more effective than an event independent from the stimulus array.     

Sequence of preparatory set for response movement

Electromyographic reaction times (EMG-RTs) of the right biceps brachii muscle were examined for two movement patterns, elbow flexion and forearm supination, in 8 healthy male subjects under simple and complex RT conditions with varied preparatory intervals (PIs): 0, 200, 400, 600, and 800 msec. In the simple RT condition, the subject was informed of the movement patterns to be performed prior to beginning the trials. In the complex RT condition the subject had to choose one of the two movement patterns at the time of the presentation of a warning signal. The results indicated that: (1) compared with the simple RT condition a delay of about 100 msec. in over-all mean EMG-RT was observed at PI = 0 msec. in the complex RT condition; (2) the difference of over-all mean EMG-RT between the two RT conditions disappeared when PI = 400 msec.; and (3) the difference in EMG-RTs between flexion and supination in the complex RT condition became the same as that in the simple RT condition when PI = 700 msec. It is assumed that the preparatory set for response movements is organized in an order, resulting in the differentiation of RT.     

Matching auditory and visual signals: is sensory modality just another feature?

In order to perceive the world coherently, we need to integrate features of objects and events that are presented to our senses. Here we investigated the temporal limit of integration in unimodal visual and auditory as well as crossmodal auditory-visual conditions. Participants were presented with alternating visual and auditory stimuli and were asked to match them either within or between modalities. At alternation rates of about 4 Hz and higher, participants were no longer able to match visual and auditory stimuli across modalities correctly, while matching within either modality showed higher temporal limits. Manipulating different temporal stimulus characteristics (stimulus offsets and/or auditory-visual SOAs) did not change performance. Interestingly, the difference in temporal limits between crossmodal and unimodal conditions appears strikingly similar to temporal limit differences between unimodal conditions when additional features have to be integrated. We suggest that adding a modality across which sensory input is integrated has the same effect as adding an extra feature to be integrated within a single modality.     

The modality shift effect and the effectiveness of warning signals in different modalities

Which is better, a visual or an auditory warning signal? Initial findings suggested that an auditory signal was more effective, speeding reaction to a target more than a visual warning signal, particularly at brief foreperiods [Bertelson, P., & Tisseyre, F. (1969). The time-course of preparation: confirmatory results with visual and auditory warning signals. Acta Psychologica, 30. In W.G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and Performance II (pp. 145-154); Davis, R., & Green, F. A. (1969). Intersensory differences in the effect of warning signals on reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 30. In W.G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and Performance II (pp. 155-167)]. This led to the hypothesis that an auditory signal is more alerting than a visual warning signal [Sanders, A. F. (1975). The foreperiod effect revisited. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 591-598; Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. (1976). Visual dominance: an information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157-171]. Recently [Turatto, M., Benso, F., Galfano, G., & Umilta, C. (2002). Nonspatial attentional shifts between audition and vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 628-639] found no evidence for an auditory warning signal advantage and showed that at brief foreperiods a signal in the same modality as the target facilitated responding more than a signal in a different modality. They accounted for this result in terms of the modality shift effect, with the signal exogenously recruiting attention to its modality, and thereby facilitating responding to targets arriving in the modality to which attention had been recruited. The present study conducted six experiments to understand the cause of these conflicting findings. The results suggest that an auditory warning signal is not more effective than a visual warning signal. Previous reports of an auditory superiority appear to have been caused by using different locations for the visual warning signal and visual target, resulting in the target arriving at an unattended location when the foreperiod was brief. Turatto et al.'s results were replicated with a modality shift effect at brief foreperiods. However, it is also suggested that previous measures of the modality shift effect may still have been confounded by a location cuing effect.     

Changes in threshold level produced by a signal preceding or following the threshold stimulus

In a previous experiment (Howarth and Treisman, 1958) it was shown that when a warning preceded a stimulus by a fixed interval, the threshold level for the stimulus was higher the longer the fixed interval. A model of this effect was proposed, assuming that the threshold criterion adopted by the subject at any moment was modified by his estimate of the probability of a stimulus at that moment.

Three predictions are derived and tested. It is found that: the standard deviation of the response is constant despite the shifts in threshold induced; the threshold continues to fall as the interval from warning to stimulus is decreased to zero, with the lowest threshold when the warning signal and the stimulus are simultaneous; and that a warning signal following the stimulus by an interval of less than 0 5 to 1 sec. also lowers the threshold.