Initiation of bilateral responses in a kinesthetic reaction time task

Two experiments are presented in which different mechanisms controlling each limb in a bilateral arm response to a unilateral kinesthetic stimulus are postulated to occur. In Experiment 1, the limb serving as the stimulus are postulated to occur. In Experiment 1, the limb serving as the stimulus limb was described as operating with relative invariance by using a tightly coupled input-output reflexive pathway, whereas the nonstimulus limb appeared to be controlled by higher-order processing thought to be more susceptible to influences such as hemispheric specialization and stimulus expectancy. The differential control model was further tested in Experiment 2 by retaining the interhemispheric pathway of the unilateral kinesthetic stimulus but experimentally uncoupling the reflex mechanism from the stimulus side. Analyses of bilateral EMG premotor latencies under these conditions revealed that each response side can be controlled at separate levels-i.e., by a reflexive type mechanism or by higher-order processing when one of the response limbs is also the stimulus limb, both sides reflect behavior that is best described by an information processing type of voluntary control.     

Control of reflexive and voluntary saccades in the gap effect

In two experiments, we examined whether voluntary and reflexive saccades shared a common fixation disengagement mechanism, Participants were required to perform a variety of tasks, each requiring a different level of information processing of the display prior to execution of the saccade. In Experiment 1, participants executed either a prosaccade or an antisaccade upon detecting a stimulus array. In Experiment 2, participants executed a prosaccade to a stimulus array only if the array contained a target item. The target could be a line (easy search) or a digit (difficult search). The critical manipulation in both experiments was the relative timing between the removal of the fixation stimulus and the onset of the stimulus array. In both experiments, it was found that saccadic latencies were shortest when the fixation stimulus was removed before the onset of the stimulus array—a gap effect. It was concluded that reflexive and voluntary saccades share a common fixation disengagement mechanism that is largely independent of higher level cognitive processes.     

Control' of reflexive and voluntary saccades in the gap effect.

In two experiments, we examined whether voluntary and reflexive saccades shared a common fixation disengagement mechanism. Participants were required to perform a variety of tasks, each requiring a different level of information processing of the display prior to execution of the saccade. In Experiment 1, participants executed either a prosaccade or an antisaccade upon detecting a stimulus array. In Experiment 2, participants executed a prosaccade to a stimulus array only if the array contained a target item. The target could be a line (easy search) or a digit (difficult search). The critical manipulation in both experiments was the relative timing between the removal of the fixation stimulus and the onset of the stimulus array. In both experiments, it was found that saccadic latencies were shortest when the fixation stimulus was removed before the onset of the stimulus array--a gap effect. It was concluded that reflexive and voluntary saccades share a common fixation disengagement mechanism that is largely independent of higher level cognitive processes.     

Synchronizing actions with events: The role of sensory information

Tasks requiring the subject to tap in synchrony to a regular sequence of stimulus events (e.g., clicks) usually elicit a response pattern in which the tap precedes the click by about 30-50 msec. This “negative asynchrony” was examined, first, by instructing subjects to use different effectors for tapping (hand vs. foot; Experiments 1 and 2), and second, by administering extrinsic auditory feedback in addition to the intrinsic tactile/kinesthetic feedback (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 controlled whether the results observed in Experiment 2 were due to purely sensory factors within the auditory modality. Results suggest that taps are synchronized with clicks at the central level by superimposing two sensory codes in time: the tactile/kinesthetic code that represents the tap (the afferent movement code) and the auditory code that represents the click (the afferent code that results from the guiding signal). Because the processing times involved in code generation are different for these two central codes, the tap has to lead over the click.     

Transitive gesture production in apraxia: visual and nonvisual sensory contributions

The production of transitive limb gestures is optimized when the appropriate tool can be physically manipulated. Little research has addressed the independent contributions of visual and nonvisual sources of sensory information to this phenomenon. In this study, 12 control, 37 LHD, and 50 RHD stroke patients performed transitive limb gestures to pantomime (to verbal command with the object visible) and object manipulation. Performance was more accurate in the object manipulation condition, suggesting that haptic and kinesthetic cues are important for transitive gesture production. Various patterns of performance were observed in the stroke groups, indicating that selective damage to the haptic/kinesthetic processing system is possible and common following unilateral stroke.     

Side-specificity of olfactory learning in the honeybee: US input side

In honeybees, Apis mellifera L., the proboscis extension reflex (PER) can be conditioned by associating an odor stimulus (CS) with a sucrose reward (US). As the neural structures involved in the detection and integration of CS and US are bilaterally symmetrical in the bee brain, we ask what respective role each brain side plays in the conditioning process. More specifically, the US normally used in conditioning experiments is the compound stimulation of the antennae (which triggers the PER) and of the proboscis (where bees lick the sucrose solution). Anatomically, the brain receives unilateral US input through each antenna, but bilateral input from the proboscis. By controlling each US component, we show that an antenna–US produces unilateral sensitization, whereas a proboscis–US or a compound–US induces bilateral sensitization. Bees can learn a unilateral odor CS with all three USs, but when a proboscis–US is used, new learning is inhibited on the contralateral side, owing to a possible US-preexposure effect. Furthermore, we show that the antenna–US induces both unilateral and bilateral reinforcement processes, whereas the proboscis–US produces only bilateral effects. Based on these data, we propose a functional model of the role of each brain side in processing lateralized CSs and USs in olfactory learning in honeybees.     

Vocal and manual response latencies to bilateral and unilateral tachistoscopic letter displays

Bilateral rows of eight letters and unilateral rows of four letters were presented in randomized sequences for 100 ms. Subjects were required to recall all letters in a trial (Experiment I); recall letters from one hemifield cued at exposure (Experiment II); recognize a single letter, making a vocal response (Experiment III); recognize a single letter, making a manual response (Experiment IV). In Experiments I, II and III, identification errors were fewer and vocal response latencies were faster for RVF stimuli, except in the bilateral condition on Experiment I; in Experiment IV manual response latencies were the same, for left and right, bilateral and unilateral conditions. Collectively, the results could not be satisfactorily accounted for by any one hypothesis: report-order, trace-scanning, or cerebral dominance. The relative contribution of each process to the laterality effect was discussed.     

Interaction Between Visually and Kinesthetically Triggered Voluntary Responses

A voluntary motor response that is prepared in advance of a stimulus may be triggered by any sensory input. This study investigated the combination of visual and kinesthetic inputs in triggering voluntary torque responses. When a visual stimulus was presented alone, subjects produced a fast and accurate increase in elbow flexion torque. When a kinesthetic stimulus was presented instead of the visual stimulus, subjects produced a similar response with a reduced response latency. When a visual stimulus was presented in combination with a kinesthetic stimulus, subjects initiated their responses after either a visual or a kinesthetic response latency, depending on the relative timing of the two stimuli. An analysis of response amplitude suggested that when visual and kinesthetic stimuli were combined, both stimuli triggered a response. The results are more consistent with a simple behavioral model of addition of visual and kinesthetic responses (which predicts that the response to combined stimuli should be the sum of individual responses) than with a model of exclusion of one response (which predicts that the response to combined stimuli should be identical to either the visual or the kinesthetic response). Because addition of visually and kinesthetically triggered responses produced a response with an erroneously large amplitude, it is suggested that visual and kinesthetic inputs are not always efficiently integrated.     

Interaction between visually and kinesthetically triggered voluntary responses

A voluntary motor response that is prepared in advance of a stimulus may be triggered by any sensory input. This study investigated the combination of visual and kinesthetic inputs in triggering voluntary torque responses. When a visual stimulus was presented alone, subjects produced a fast and accurate increase in elbow flexion torque. When a kinesthetic stimulus was presented instead of the visual stimulus, subjects produced a similar response with a reduced response latency. When a visual stimulus was presented in combination with a kinesthetic stimulus, subjects initiated their responses after either a visual or a kinesthetic response latency, depending on the relative timing of the two stimuli. An analysis of response amplitude suggested that when visual and kinesthetic stimuli were combined, both stimuli triggered a response. The results are more consistent with a simple behavioral model of addition of visual and kinesthetic responses (which predicts that the response to combined stimuli should be the sum of individual responses) than with a model of exclusion of one response (which predicts that the response to combined stimuli should be identical to either the visual or the kinesthetic response). Because addition of visually and kinesthetically triggered responses produced a response with an erroneously large amplitude, it is suggested that visual and kinesthetic inputs are not always efficiently integrated.     

Time-dependent effects of kinesthetic input

Sensory input can be used by the nervous system to control the spatial parameters of motor responses (e.g., distance, velocity, and direction) by initializing these parameters before movement onset and then by adjusting these parameters during movement. Sensory input can also be used to trigger movements. In the experiments reported in this paper, we compared the effects of kinesthetic input on a triggered motor response when the kinesthetic input was generated at different times relative to the onset of the motor response. Human subjects responded to a visual stimulus by intentionally increasing elbow torque to a target level. Kinesthetic input was generated by unexpectedly rotating each subject's elbow 100 ms before the onset of the intentional torque response (early) or coincident with the onset of the intentional torque response (late). The effect of early kinesthetic input on the intentional torque response markedly differed from the effect of late kinesthetic input. The effect of early kinesthetic input was relatively independent of the direction of elbow rotation, had a different dependence on the amplitude of rotation, and required a shorter duration of rotation compared to the effect of late kinesthetic input. These differences in the effects of early and late kinesthetic input might be related to the initialization, triggering, and adjustment of motor responses.     

ERPs reveal similar effects of social gaze orienting and voluntary attention, and distinguish each from reflexive attention

Spatial attention can be reflexively captured by a physically salient stimulus, effortfully directed toward a relevant location, or involuntarily oriented in the direction of another person's gaze (i.e., social gaze orienting). Here, we used event-related potentials to compare the effects of these three types of orienting on multiple stages of subsequent target processing. Although gaze orienting has been associated more strongly with reflexive capture than with voluntary attention, the present data provide new evidence that the neural effects of social gaze orienting are markedly different from the effects of reflexive attentional capture by physically salient stimuli. Specifically, despite their similar behavioral effects, social gaze orienting and reflexive capture produce different effects on both early sensory processing (~120 ms; P1/N1 components) and later, higher-order processing (~300 ms; P3 component). In contrast, the effects of social gaze orienting were highly similar to those of voluntary orienting at these stages of target processing.     

Derived relational responding as generalized operant behavior

The major aim of the present study was to demonstrate that derived relational responding may be viewed as a form of generalized operant behavior. In Experiment 1, 4 subjects were divided into two conditions (2 in each condition). Using a two-comparison matching-to-sample procedure, all subjects were trained and tested for the formation of two combinatorially entailed relations. Subjects were trained and tested across multiple stimulus sets. Each set was composed of novel stimuli. Both Conditions 1 and 2 involved explicit performance-contingent feedback presented at the end of each block of test trials (i.e., delayed feedback). In Condition 1, feedback was accurate (consistent with the experimenter-designated relations) following exposure to the initial stimulus sets. When subjects' responding reached a predefined mastery criterion, the feedback then switched to inaccurate (not consistent with the experimenter-designated relations) until responding once again reached a predefined criterion. Condition 2 was similar to Condition 1, except that exposure to the initial stimulus sets was followed by inaccurate feedback and once the criterion was reached feedback switched to accurate. Once relational responding emerged and stabilized, response patterns on novel stimulus sets were controlled by the feedback delivered for previous stimulus sets. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1, except that during Conditions 3 and 4 four comparison stimuli were employed during training and testing. Experiment 3 was similar to Condition 1 of Experiment 1, except that after the mastery criterion was reached for class-consistent responding, feedback alternated from accurate to inaccurate across each successive stimulus set. Experiment 4 involved two types of feedback, one type following tests for mutual entailment and the other type following tests for combinatorial entailment. Results from this experiment demonstrated that mutual and combinatorial entailment may be controlled independently by accurate and inaccurate feedback. Overall, the data support the suggestion, made by relational frame theory, that derived relational responding is a form of generalized operant behavior.     

Stimulus-response compatibility and response preparation: effects on motor component of information processing for upper and lower limb responses

The effects of stimulus-response compatibility and response preparation on the motor component of the information processing system were investigated by analyzing the fractionated reaction time for the upper and lower limbs. The reaction time was divided into two periods with respect to the onset of electromyographic activity, premotor and motor times. The response preparation was manipulated by the probability that the locations of the precue and subsequent imperative stimulus corresponded. On a stimulus-response compatible task, subjects were required to release a key on the same side as an imperative stimulus, irrespective of the precued side. On an incompatible task, subjects were required to act in the reverse manner. The upper and lower limb responses were measured during both tasks. A repeated-measures design was used with 12 male university students. Analysis of the reaction and premotor times indicated that the stimulus-response compatibility effect became larger as response preparation decreased. The analysis of motor time yielded significant interactions between stimulus-response compatibility and limb and between response preparation and limb. These findings indicated that the motor component of information processing for the lower limb response is affected by both stimulus-response compatibility and response preparation.     

Thresholds of Illumination for the Visual Discrimination of Direction of Movement and for the Discrimination of Discreteness

Currently, relatively little is known about what drives the choice of limb for goal-oriented reaching. Traditionally, the explanation has been tied predominately to motor dominance as manifested in handedness. This article offers data and an argument suggesting that handedness can be modified by attentional (spatial) information. Although motor dominance may be the controlling factor in the programming and execution of reaching movements at the midline and hemispace ipsilateral (same side) to the dominant limb, attentional information alters the programming of movements in what would be contralateral space. The general trend of behavior is characterized by reaching on the same side as the stimulus, in ipsilateral fashion, a phenomenon explained by kinesthetic efficiency and hemispheric bias.     

Flanker and Simon effects interact at the response selection stage

The present study aimed at investigating the processing stage underlying stimulus–stimulus (S–S) congruency effects by examining the relation of a particular type of congruency effect (i.e., the flanker effect) with a stimulus–response (S–R) spatial correspondence effect (i.e., the Simon effect). Experiment 1 used a unilateral flanker task in which the flanker also acted as a Simon-like accessory stimulus. Results showed a significant S–S Congruency × S–R Correspondence interaction: An advantage for flanker–response spatially corresponding trials was observed in target–flanker congruent conditions, whereas, in incongruent conditions, there was a noncorresponding trials' advantage. The analysis of the temporal trend of the correspondence effects ruled out a temporal-overlap account for the observed interaction. Moreover, results of Experiment 2, in which the flanker did not belong to the target set, demonstrated that this interaction cannot be attributed to perceptual grouping of the target–flanker pairs and referential coding of the target with respect to the flanker in the congruent and incongruent conditions, respectively. Taken together, these findings are consistent with a response selection account of congruency effects: Both the position and the task-related attribute of the flanker would activate the associated responses. In noncorresponding-congruent trials and corresponding-incongruent trials, this would cause a conflict at the response selection stage.     

What determines choice of limb for unimanual reaching movements?

Currently, relatively little is known about what drives the choice of limb for goal-oriented reaching. Traditionally, the explanation has been tied predominately to motor dominance as manifested in handedness. This article offers data and an argument suggesting that handedness can be modified by attentional (spatial) information. Although motor dominance may be the controlling factor in the programming and execution of reaching movements at the midline and hemispace ipsilateral (same side) to the dominant limb, attentional information alters the programming of movements in what would be contralateral space. The general trend of behavior is characterized by reaching on the same side as the stimulus, in ipsilateral fashion, a phenomenon explained by kinesthetic efficiency and hemispheric bias.     

Kinesthetic figural aftereffects in acute schizophrenia: a style of processing stimuli.

The Kinesthetic Figural Aftereffect test was administered to 106 psychiatric inpatients to assess styles of stimulus processing in schizophrenia. Three conditions were used: (1) standard stimulus conditions at the acute phase; (2) standard conditions, 7 wk. later, to evaluate stability over time; (3) reversed stimulus conditions to assess kinesthetic figural aftereffect generality under different stimulus conditions. Results indicated that: (1) schizophrenics reduced stimuli, but differences between patient groups were not significant. (2) Kinesthetic figural aftereffect stability over time was shown by nonschizophrenics (p less than .01) but not by schizophrenic and borderline patients. (3) All diagnostic groups reversed kinesthetic figural aftereffect responses under reversed stimulus conditions, e.g., former "augmenters" tended to reduce more under agumenting conditions, suggesting the importance of the specific stimulus conditions. (4) Acute schizophrenics showed a stimulus-governed style. (5) The results raise questions about kinesthetic figural aftereffects as a measure of response style.     

Differential effects of voluntary expectancies on reaction times and event-related potentials: evidence for automatic and controlled expectancies.

Expectancy has been used to explain the effects of stimulus sequences both on reaction times (RTs) and on the P300 component of the human event-related potential. However, there are conflicting views about the control obtainable over these underlying expectancies. We compared the effects of voluntary expectancies for stimulus changes or repetitions in random tone series on RTs and the P300. Ss responded according to either stimulus identity (Experiment 1) or stimulus sequence (Experiment 2). In both experiments RTs were strongly affected by event expectedness. P300 amplitude, on the other hand, was affected (as a trend) only in Experiment 2. The results suggest that there are at least 2 types of "expectancy", one that is largely automatic and inflexible, reflected in P300 amplitude, and a second, controlled process that is reflected mainly in RT. The latter type of expectancy appears to affect processing stages beyond stimulus evaluation and classification.     

大脑两半球与整体和局部性质的选择性加工

研究大脑两半球在加工整体和局部性质中的优势以及两半球能否同时分别选择两个复合刺激的整体和局部性质。实验中把一个复合字母随机呈现在左视野或右视野,或者把两个复合字母同时分别呈现在左视野和右视野。实验一发现,在单侧呈现条件下,被试检测左右视野的整体或局部靶目标的反应时没有显著差别,但在双侧同时呈现条件下,检测右视野局部靶目标比检测左视野局部靶目标时的反应时短。实验二要求被试检测同时呈现在左右视野的整体或局部靶目标,发现当两个视野的靶目标处于同一水平时(整体或局部)反应时较短,两个视野的靶目标处于不同水平时(一侧处于整体水平而另一侧处于局部水平)反应时较长。这些结果提示,当两个复合刺激同时呈现在左右视野时,大脑左半球在选择性加工局部性质时具有优势;左右两半球更容易选择两个复合刺激同一个水平的性质,分别选择两个复合刺激不同水平的性质比较困难。