What makes targets redundant?

Two letter-classification experiments that investigated target-redundancy effects on reaction time (RT) were conducted. Both experiments were replicated with choice reaction time (CRT) and go/no-go (GNG) procedures. In each experiment, there were two single-target conditions, one with a noise letter and one without. In one experiment, the letter classes were two letters that could be of either case. In the second experiment, each class consisted of two different capital letters. In both experiments, there were two redundant-targets conditions, one with identical targets and one with the different members of a class. In both of the GNG experiments, redundancy gains were obtained comparing the different-targets condition with the no-noise, single-target condition. Redundant stimuli are ones that lead to the same response. Visually different stimuli may be processed in parallel and jointly activate a response. GNG procedures are more sensitive than CRT in the investigation of redundancy effects.     

What makes targets redundant?

Two letter-classification experiments that investigated target-redundancy effects on reaction time (RT) were conducted. Both experiments were replicated with choice reaction time (CRT) and go/no-go (GNG) procedures. In each experiment, there were two single-target conditions, one with a noise letter and one without. In one experiment, the letter classes were two letters that could be of either case. In the second experiment, each class consisted of two different capital letters. In both experiments, there were two redundant-targets conditions, one with identical targets and one with the different members of a class. In both of the GNG experiments, redundancy gains were obtained comparing the different-targets condition with the no-noise, single-target condition. Redundant stimuli are ones that lead to the same response. Visually different stimuli may be processed in parallel and jointly activate a response. GNG procedures are more sensitive than CRT in the investigation of redundancy effects.     

Processing redundant signals: coactivation, divided attention, or what?

The evidence for and against a redundancy gain in reaction time (RT) when the target is repeated in the visual display is reviewed. We consider the relevance of redundancy gains under these circumstances to the question of whether attention can be simultaneously directed to separate locations in the visual field. In the present experiments, two capital letters were the target stimuli in a two-alternative forced-choice RT paradigm. In addition to the usual conditions of single-target trials, trials on which the target is repeated in the display, and trials on which the target occurs with a noise letter, we introduced the innovation of a condition in which both targets occur in the display. In our two experiments, RT was fastest with single-target displays and slowest with displays containing a target and a noise letter. There was no significant difference in RT to displays in which the target was repeated and displays in which both targets were presented. Both conditions showed a redundancy gain when compared with displays containing a target and a noise letter. The lack of response competition in the both-targets condition and the overall pattern of the results were well explained by a unitary attentional focus that serially processed the letters in the display. Analyses of minima and maxima RTs were consistent with this interpretation.     

Faces retain attention

In the present study, we investigated whether faces have an advantage in retaining attention over other stimulus categories. In three experiments, subjects were asked to focus on a central go/no-go signal before classifying a concurrently presented peripheral line target. In Experiment 1, the go/no-go signal could be superimposed on photographs of upright famous faces, matching inverted faces, or meaningful objects. Experiments 2 and 3 tested upright and inverted unfamiliar faces, printed names, and another class of meaningful objects in an identical design. A fourth experiment provided a replication of Experiment 1, but with a 1,000-msec stimulus onset asynchrony between the onset of the central face/nonface stimuli and the peripheral targets. In all the experiments, the presence of an upright face significantly delayed target response times, in comparison with each of the other stimulus categories. These results suggest a general attentional bias, so that it is particularly difficult to disengage processing resources from faces.     

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.     

Plucks and bows are not categorically perceived

Letter-like targets (a circle and a square) were presented in one of two fixed and cued visual field locations and were shown alone, flanked by a noise stimulus on the peripheral side (side of target farthest from fixation), on the central side, or on both sides simultaneously. The adjacent target and noise stimulus borders had similar featural properties (both curved or both straight lines) or dissimilar properties (one being a curved line and one a straight line). Each of 10 subjects made a go, no-go response only when his or her designated target appeared in a display. The results showed: (1) single targets were discriminated more accurately and more rapidly than were targets shown simultaneously with noise stimuli, (2) targets having dissimilar border relationships with noise items were discriminated more accurately than were targets having similar border relationships, (3) targets in central-noise displays were discriminated more accurately and rapidly than were targets in peripheral-noise displays, and (4) there was no interaction between border relationships and noise position. The principal result relating to target-noise border featural relationship was consistent with predictions derived from models which place the locus of noise effects at the stage of stimulus feature extraction. Aspects of the results were, however, seen to be consistent with both feature extraction and response competition conceptualizations.     

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.     

The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition

The functional significance of the N2 in go/no-go tasks was investigated by comparing electrophysiological data obtained from two tasks: a go/no-go task involving both response inhibition as well as response conflict monitoring, and a go/GO task associated with conflict monitoring only. No response was required to no-go stimuli, and a response with maximal force to GO stimuli. The relative frequency of the go stimuli (80% vs. 50%) was varied. The N2 peaked on both no-go and GO trials, with larger amplitudes for both signals when presented in a context of frequent (80%) go signals. These results support the idea that the N2 reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition.     

Effects of redundant visual stimuli on temporal order judgments

Four experiments were conducted in order to compare the effects of stimulus redundancy on temporal order judgments (TOJs) and reaction times (RTs). In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were presented in each trial with a tone and either a single visual stimulus or two redundant visual stimuli. They were asked to judge whether the tone or the visual display was presented first. Judgments of the relative onset times of the visual and the auditory stimuli were virtually unaffected by the presentation of redundant, rather than single, visual stimuli. Experiments 3 and 4 used simple RT tasks with the same stimuli, and responses were much faster to redundant than to single visual stimuli. It appears that the traditional speedup of RT associated with redundant visual stimuli arises after the stimulus detection processes to which TOJs are sensitive.     

The role of response inhibition in temporal preparation: Evidence from a go/no-go task

During the foreperiod (FP) of a warned reaction task, participants engage in a process of temporal preparation to speed response to the impending target stimulus. Previous neurophysiological studies have shown that inhibition is applied during FP to prevent premature response. Previous behavioral studies have shown that the duration of FP on both the current and the preceding trial codetermine response time to the target. Integrating these findings, the present study tested the hypothesis that the behavioral effects find their origin in response inhibition on the preceding trial. In two experiments the variable-FP paradigm was combined with a go/no-go task, in which no-go stimuli required explicit response inhibition. The resulting data pattern revealed sequential effects of both FP (long or short) and response requirement (go or no-go), which could be jointly understood as expressions of response inhibition, consistent with the hypothesis.     

The influence of dichotical fusion on the redundant signals effect,localization performance,and the mismatch negativity

In two experiments, each including a simple reaction time (RT) task, a localization task, and a passive oddball paradigm, the physical similarity between two dichotically presented auditory stimuli was manipulated. In both experiments, a redundant signals effect (RSE), high localization performance, and a reliable mismatch negativity (MMN) was observed for largely differing stimuli, suggesting that these are coded separately in auditory memory. In contrast, no RSE and a localization rate close to chance level (experiment 1) or at chance (experiment 2) were observed for stimuli differing to a lesser degree. Crucially, for such stimuli a small (experiment 1) or no (experiment 2) MMN were observed. These MMN results indicate that such stimuli tend to fuse into a single percept and that this fusion occurs rather early within information processing.     

Forest before trees? It depends where you look

Because it may be deduced from the more elementary principles of visual processing, global precedence (Navon, 1977) is not a primary perceptual principle. Subjects were presented with a large letter made out of small ones and asked to make an identification response on the basis of either the large or small letter. When fixation was controlled to provide adequate stimulation from the small letter, there was no difference in reaction time (RT) between the large and small targets. Also, there was no difference in interference due to response incompatibility of the unattended letter based on target size. However, when the stimulus was presented peripherally, unpredictably to the right or left of fixation, RT was faster to the large target and interference was substantially greater for the small target. Functions for the development of associative strength and associative interference are presented. Global precedence is dependent on factors tending to degrade small stimuli more than large ones.     

Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task

During a 1-sec tachistoscopic exposure, Ss responded with a right or left leverpress to a single target letter from the sets H and K or S and C. The target always appeared directly above the fixation cross. Experimentally varied were the types of noise letters (response compatible or incompatible) flanking the target and the spacing between the letters in the display. In all noise conditions, reaction time (RT) decreased as between-letter spacing increased. However, noise letters of the opposite response set were found to impair RT significantly more than same response set noise, while mixed noise letters belonging to neither set but having set-related features produced intermediate impairment. Differences between two target-alone control conditions, one presented intermixed with noise-condition trials and one presented separately in blocks, gave evidence of a preparatory set on the part of Ss to inhibit responses to the noise letters. It was concluded that S cannot prevent processing of noise letters occurring within about 1 deg of the target due to the nature of processing channel capacity and must inhibit his response until he is able to discriminate exactly which letter is in the target position. This discrimination is more difficult and time consuming at closer spacings, and inhibition is more difficult when noise letters indicate the opposite response from the targe     

On quantifying multisensory interaction effects in reaction time and detection rate

Both mean reaction time (RT) and detection rate (DR) are important measures for assessing the amount of multisensory interaction occurring in crossmodal experiments, but they are often applied separately. Here we demonstrate that measuring multisensory performance using either RT or DR alone misses out on important information. We suggest an integration of RT and DR into a single measure of multisensory performance: the first index (MRE*) is based on an arithmetic combination of RT and DR, the second (MPE) is constructed from parameters derived from fitting a sequential sampling model to RT and DR data simultaneously. Our approach is illustrated by data from two audio–visual experiments. In the first, a redundant targets detection experiment using stimuli of different intensity, both measures yield similar pattern of results supporting the “principle of inverse effectiveness”. The second experiment, introducing stimulus onset asynchrony and differing instructions (focused attention vs. redundant targets task) further supports the usefulness of both indices. Statistical properties of both measures are investigated via bootstrapping procedures.     

Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Redundancy gains in compound tasks

Two visual search experiments investigated the detection of odd-one-out feature targets redundantly defined on multiple dimensions. Targets differed from the distractors in either orientation or colour or both (redundant targets). In Experiment 1, the three types of target were presented either in separate trial blocks or randomized within blocks, and the task involved either a simple target detection response or a “compound” response based on the position of dials inside the target. Mean reaction times (RTs) were faster to redundant targets than to singly defined targets, with greater gains in simple detection than in compound tasks. Further, simple detection RTs to redundant targets were faster than the fastest RTs to singly defined targets, violating Miller's (1982) “race model inequality” (RMI). Experiment 2 showed that, with compound tasks, mean RT redundancy gains (and violations of the RMI) depend on practice. The results suggest that separate colour and orientation feature contrast signals coactivate perceptual mechanisms involved in target detection.     

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.     

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.     

Multisensory processing of redundant information in go/no-go and choice responses

In multisensory research, faster responses are commonly observed when multimodal stimuli are presented, as compared to unimodal target presentations. This so-called redundant-signals effect can be explained by several frameworks, including separate-activation and coactivation models. The redundant-signals effect has been investigated in a large number of studies; however, most of those studies have been limited to the rejection of separate-activation models. Coactivation models have been analyzed in only a few studies, primarily using simple response tasks. Here, we investigated the mechanism of multisensory integration underlying go/no-go and choice responses to redundant auditory–visual stimuli. In the present study, the mean and variance of response times, as well as the accuracy rates of go/no-go and choice responses, were used to test a coactivation model based on the linear superposition of diffusion processes (Schwarz, 1994) within two absorbing barriers. The diffusion superposition model accurately describes the means and variances of response times as well as the proportions of correct responses observed in the two tasks. Linear superposition thus seems to be a general principle in the integration of redundant information provided by different sensory channels, and is not restricted to simple responses. The results connect existing theories of multisensory integration with theories on choice behavior.