Response programming, as assessed by reaction time, does not establish commands for particular muscles

In previous studies, response programming has been inferred from a relation between reaction time and the nature of the response which follows. However, it has not been clear whether this programming process generates commands for specific muscles or abstract timing networks which can be applied to any appropriate muscle group. Experiment 1 employed the Sternberg (1969) additive-factor method to show that muscle selection need not be completed before such programming begins, a conclusion which is inconsistent with the view that this process establishes commands to previously selected muscles. Experiments 2 and 3 provide converging evidence against the muscle-specific view of programming by showing that advance programming of response timing can occur when the response muscle is not specified. A theoretical framework encompassing these and previous results is proposed.     

Reaction time to tones in tonal backgrounds and a comparison of reaction time to signal onset and offset

In order to learn more about the processing of auditory information, simple reaction time (RT) measurements were made when subjects were asked to respond to tones presented against a tonal background. In the first experiment, a counterintuitive result was obtained: with two widely separated frequencies, 1,900 and 4,000 Hz, the presence of the background facilitated RT. In a second experiment, using two frequencies which were closer together (3,500 and 4,000 Hz), slowing of RT in the presence of the background was observed, as would be expected from the literature on auditory masking. A third experiment suggested that the information carried by signal offset is not an important factor in the facilitation observed with widely separated tones. In this experiment an unexpected result was found: subjects receiving offsets in their right ears responded significantly more slowly than did subjects receiving offsets in their left ears.     

Reaction time task as unconditional stimulus

The present study was conducted to demonstrate classic conditioning in electrodermal (ED) and heart rate (HR) responses by using a nonaversive reaction time (RT) task as unconditional stimulus (US). Three groups of 12 subjects each were studied to test the efficacy of this US procedure by varying the essential components of the RT task-US between groups. Eight seconds differential delay conditioning was applied in each group. Simple geometric features (square, cross) displayed on a TV screen were used as CS+ and CS−. RT task consisted of a nonaversive tone (72 dBA, 1000 or 1200 Hz) and a motor response (pressing a button with the left index finger). Subjects were asked to respond as soon as the tone stimulus was presented. The three groups received different stimulus sequences during the 16-trial acquisition phase only. In one group (Group C1), CS+ was followed by a tone to which subjects were to respond, whereas CS− was not followed by a tone. Similarly, in a second group (Group H), CS+ was followed by a tone, whereas CS− was not; however, subjects of Group H (habituation group) were not required to respond to the tone. In a third group, (Group C2) CS+ was followed by a tone to which subjects were to respond, while CS− was followed by a different tone requiring no response. According to analysis of Group C1 data, differential conditioning was obtained in each response measure. Group H displayed habituation in each response measure obtained. In Group C2, differential conditioning was obtained in the second latency window of ED responses only. In all trials, first-interval anticipatory ED responses and HR responses did occur during acquisition, but were not differentiated with respect to the CS conditions. Although the results of Group C2 need further exploration, differential conditioning of HR and in all latency windows of ED responses was demonstrated by the use of a nonaversive RT task as US.     

Reaction time task as unconditional stimulus

Nonaversive unconditional stimuli (USs) are seldom used in human classic conditioning of autonomic responses. One major objection to their use is that they produce deficits in electrodermal (ED) second- and third-interval response conditioning. However, a nonaversive reaction time (RT) task that includes feedback of success has been shown to be an effective US while avoiding this disadvantage (Lipp and Vaitl 1988). The present study compared this new RT task (RT-new) with a traditional RT task (RT-old) and with a standard aversive US (shock) in differential classic conditioning of ED, heart rate (HR), and digital pulse volume (DPV) responses. Eight-second-delay differential conditioning was applied in three groups of 12 subjects each. Simple geometric features (square, cross) displayed on a television screen served as conditional stimuli (CS⁺ and CS^?). In acquisition, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups; differential conditioning did occur in HR, first- and second-interval ED responses, and first-interval DPV responses. Separate analyses within each group, however, revealed that there was no second-interval ED conditioning in the RT-old group. During extinction, neither DPV nor second-interval ED conditioning could be obtained, whereas HR and first-interval ED conditioning occurred in each group. In third-interval omission ED responses, RT-old and shock groups exhibited extinction, while response differentiation was maintained in the RT-new group throughout extinction. The RT task including feedback proved to be as reliable a US as a standard aversive US, whereas application of a traditional RT task again yielded some weaknesses in second-interval ED conditioning.     

Reaction time to the onset and offset of electrocutaneous stimuli as a function of rise and decay time

Reaction times were obtained to the onset and offset of 70-cps electrocutaneous signals of five rise and decay times and five intensity levels. The results show that both onset and offset RTs increase linearly with increased rise and decay times. With fast rates of rise or decay, the onset produces faster RTs than the cessation of stimulation. The opposite effect is found when long rise and decay times are used. Interpretations of these results are given in terms of neural adaptation and accommodation.     

Reaction time to the onset and offset of electrocutaneous stimuli as a function of rise and decay time

Reaction times were obtained to the onset and offset of 70-cps electrocutaneous signals of five rise and decay times and five intensity levels. The results show that both onset and offset RTs increase linearly with increased rise and decay times. With fast rates of rise or decay, the onset produces faster RTs than the cessation of stimulation. The opposite effect is found when long rise and decay times are used. Interpretations of these results are given in terms of neural adaptation and accommodation.     

Visual persistence as measured by reaction time

Latency of reaction to onset of a visual display was subtracted from latency of reaction to offset. Persistence was defined as difference between the two latency values. Persistence was inversely related to stimulus duration and was comparable for monoptic presentation and for presentation of the first half of the stimulus duration to one eye and the second half to the other. A power function described the relation between persistence and stimulus duration. The possible effects of central intermittency on this type of reaction time measure are discussed.     

Redundant sensory information does not enhance sequence learning in the serial reaction time task

In daily life we encounter multiple sources of sensory information at any given moment. Unknown is whether such sensory redundancy in some way affects implicit learning of a sequence of events. In the current paper we explored this issue in a serial reaction time task. Our results indicate that redundant sensory information does not enhance sequence learning when all sensory information is presented at the same location (responding to the position and/or color of the stimuli; Experiment 1), even when the distinct sensory sources provide more or less similar baseline response latencies (responding to the shape and/or color of the stimuli; Experiment 2). These findings support the claim that sequence learning does not (necessarily) benefit from sensory redundancy. Moreover, transfer was observed between various sets of stimuli, indicating that learning was predominantly response-based.     

Reaction time to a second stimulus as a function of intensity of the first stimulus

Reaction time (RT) to the second of two stimuli presented in rapid succession was examined as a function of the intensity of the first stimulus (S₁). It was found that the delay in RT₂ was greater following a dim first stimulus than following a bright first stimulus. The magnitude of this increase corresponded to the difference in RTs to the two intensity levels of S₁. These results support the prediction of a single channel model of response selection. Examination of mean first RTs revealed a general elevation in latency of RT. However, since this increase was not influenced by the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) or by the intensity of the second stimulus (S₂), and since the same increase was found on “catch trials“ where no S₂ was presented, this increase is considered to be a function of change in set in the double response situation.     

Routes to action in reaction time tasks

Summary Two-choice tactile RTs are no faster than 8-choice tasks, implying the existence of a direct route. However, simple tactile RTs are much faster than choice tactile RTs (Leonard, 1959). In Experiment I we show that this is not due to subjects anticipating the stimulus in simple tactile RT tasks. Increasing probability of stimulus occurrence at a particular time led to equally decreased tactile RTs for simple and choice tasks.We suggest that an alternative route is available for simple RTs which is faster than the direct route available for choice tactile RTs. This route is faster because (a) the response can be specified in advance, and (b) the stimulus does not need to be identified. The subject needs merely to register that it has occurred. In Experiment II we show that simple RTs to a visual stimulus are decreased by a simultaneous uninformative tactile stimulus even when this is to the wrong finger. This confirms that exact stimulus identification is not necessary in the fast route. In Experiment III we show that a secondary task slows down simple tactile RTs to the same level as choice tactile RTs while the latter are hardly affected. This suggests that focussed attention is not needed for the direct route, but it is needed for the fast route. We propose that a useful distinction can be made between action largely controlled by external stimuli (the direct route) and action largely controlled by internal intentions of will (the fast route).     

Reaction time as a function of stimulus intensity for the monkey

Monkeys were trained to release a telegraph key in response to a visual or auditory stimulus. The latency of the key release response was measured for different stimulus intensities. In general, the relation between latency and intensity is inverse and exponential with greater variability of latency at the lower intensities. Some preliminary data involving differential reinforcement of short latencies are presented.