Response competition: A major source of interference in a tactile identification task

Two experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify a moving, tactile stimulus. In both experiments, the subjects were presented with a target to their left index fingerpad and a nontarget (also moving) to their left middle fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location and to respond “1” if the stimulus moved either to the left or up the finger, and to respond “2” if the stimulus moved either right or down the finger. The results showed that accuracy was better and reaction times were faster when the target and nontarget moved in the same direction than when they moved in different directions. When the target and nontarget moved in different directions, accuracy was significantly better and reaction times were significantly faster when the two stimuli had the same assigned response than when they had different responses. The results provide support for the conclusion that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers to the level of incipient response activation, even when subjects attempt to focus their attention on one location on the skin.     

Response competition: a major source of interference in a tactile identification task.

Two experiments investigated the ability of subjects to identify a moving, tactile stimulus. In both experiments, the subjects were presented with a target to their left index fingerpad and a nontarget (also moving) to their left middle fingerpad. Subjects were instructed to attend only to the target location and to respond "1" if the stimulus moved either to the left or up the finger, and to respond "2" if the stimulus moved either right or down the finger. The results showed that accuracy was better and reaction times were faster when the target and nontarget moved in the same direction than when they moved in different directions. When the target and nontarget moved in different directions, accuracy was significantly better and reaction times were significantly faster when the two stimuli had the same assigned response than when they had different responses. The results provide support for the conclusion that movement information is processed across adjacent fingers to the level of incipient response activation, even when subjects attempt to focus their attention on one location on the skin.     

The effect of spatial orientation on the perception of moving tactile stimuli

Previous studies have shown that the perception of spatial patterns, such as letters, presented to the hand is affected by the spatial orientation of the hand. The present study investigated how the perception of direction of motion across the fingerpads changes with the position of the hand in space. The moving stimuli were generated on two displays. In one condition, the displays were placed horizontally in front of the subject, with the subject’s thumb (target site) and index finger (nontarget site) placed flat on the displays. In a second condition, the displays were vertically oriented and gripped between the thumb and index finger. Using a selective-attention paradigm in which subjects are instructed to respond only to the direction of motion at the target site, performance was still affected by the direction of motion at the nontarget site. Changing the orientation of the displays changed the effectiveness of the nontarget in interfering with the identification of the target movement. Nontarget stimuli that produced no interference in the horizontal orientation did so in the vertical, and vice versa. It appears that subjects are not using the local direction of movement across the fingerpads to judge the relative direction of movement at the two sites; rather, they are using the external direction of movement.     

Tactile pattern perception by two fingers: Temporal interference and response competition

The identification of a spatial pattern (target) presented to one fingerpad may be interfered with by the presentation of a second pattern (nontarget) to either the same fingerpad or a second fingerpad. A portion of the interference appears to be due to masking and a portion to response competition. In the present study, vibrotactile spatial patterns were designed to extend over two fingerpads. Target and nontarget patterns were presented to the same two fingerpads with a temporal separation between the two patterns. The function relating target identification to the temporal separation between the target and nontarget was very similar to the functions obtained with one-finger patterns in temporal masking studies. Subsequent measurements showed that a substantial portion of the interference resulted from response competition. Pattern categorization was better when patterns were presented to two fingers on opposite hands than to two fingers on the same hand; however, there was more interference for patterns presented bilaterally than for patterns presented ipsilaterally. The results supported the conclusion that similar processes are involved in the perception of sequences of spatial patterns whether the patterns are presented to one or to two fingers.     

Perceptual processing at adjacent location son a single finger: Masking and response competition

When target patterns and nontarget patterns are presented either to the same or to adjacent locations on the distal pad of the index finger, the amount of interference in identifying targets depends on both the shape and the location of the nontarget (Horner, 1997). In the present study, the question of whether such interference is caused by masking (the masker in some way distorts the initial representation of the target) or by response competition (the observer mistakenly responds with the masker, rather than with the target) was investigated. A 4-to-2 paradigm was used (Craig, 1995), in which four stimuli were mapped to only two responses. Targets and nontargets were randomly selected from the set of four stimuli and presented to the same or adjacent locations on the same fingerpad. Both the distal pad and the medial pad of the index finger were tested, because innervation density varies proximodistally on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. The results indicated that response competition was an important factor limiting perception. Furthermore, perception was affected by varying location on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. Finally, varying location on the distal pad affected perception only when responses were based on pattern shape, not when responses were based on direction of motion. The results are discussed in terms of differences in innervation density between adjacent locations and possible resultant differences in the spatial filtering properties of the skin.     

Perceptual processing at adjacent locations on a single finger: masking and response competition

When target patterns and nontarget patterns are presented either to the same or to adjacent locations on the distal pad of the index finger, the amount of interference in identifying targets depends on both the shape and the location of the nontarget (Horner, 1997). In the present study, the question of whether such interference is caused by masking (the masker in some way distorts the initial representation of the target) or by response competition (the observer mistakenly responds with the masker, rather than with the target) was investigated. A 4-to-2 paradigm was used (Craig, 1995), in which four stimuli were mapped to only two responses. Targets and nontargets were randomly selected from the set of four stimuli and presented to the same or adjacent locations on the same fingerpad. Both the distal pad and the medial pad of the index finger were tested, because innervation density varies proximodistally on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. The results indicated that response competition was an important factor limiting perception. Furthermore, perception was affected by varying location on the distal pad, but not on the medial pad. Finally, varying location on the distal pad affected perception only when responses were based on pattern shape, not when responses were based on direction of motion. The results are discussed in terms of differences in innervation density between adjacent locations and possible resultant differences in the spatial filtering properties of the skin.     

The effect of hand position and pattern motion on temporal order judgments

Subjects made temporal order judgments (TOJs) of tactile stimuli presented to the fingerpads. The subjects judged which one of two locations had been stimulated first. The tactile stimuli were patterns that simulated movement across the fingerpads. Although irrelevant to the task, the direction of movement of the patterns biased the TOJs. If the pattern at one location moved in the direction of the second location, the subjects tended to judge the first location as leading the second location. If the pattern moved in the opposite direction, that location was judged as trailing. In a series of experiments, the effect of the spatial position of the hands and fingers on TOJs and the perception of the direction of pattern movement were examined. Changing the position of the hands so that the patterns no longer moved directly toward each other reduced or eliminated the effect of motion on TOJs. In a variation of Aristotle's illusion, the moving patterns were presented to crossed and uncrossed fingers. The results indicated that, contrary to Aristotle's illusion, the subjects processed the moving patterns relative to an environmental framework, rather than to the local direction of motion on the fingerpads. Presenting the patterns to crossed hands produced results similar to those obtained with crossed fingers: The subjects processed the patterns according to an environmental framework.     

The effect of motion on tactile and visual temporal order judgments

Four experiments were conducted, three with tactile stimuli and one with visual stimuli, in which subjects made temporal order judgments (TOJs). The tactile stimuli were patterns that moved laterally across the fingerpads. The subject's task was to judge which finger received the pattern first. Even though the movement was irrelevant to the task, the subjects' TOJs were greatly affected by the direction of movement of the patterns. Accuracy in judging temporal order was enhanced when the patterns moved in a direction that was consistent with the temporal order of presentation--for example, when the movement on each fingerpad was from right to left and the temporally leading site of stimulation was to the right of the temporally trailing site of stimulation. When movement was inconsistent with the temporal order of presentation, accuracy was considerably reduced, often well below chance.The bias in TOJs was unaffected by training or by presenting the stimuli to fingers on opposite hands. In a fourth experiment, subjects judged the temporal order of visual stimuli that, like the tactile stimuli, moved in a direction that was either consistent or inconsistent with the TOJ. The results were similar to those obtained with tactile stimuli. It is suggested that the bias may be affected by attentional mechanisms and by apparent motion generated between the two sites on the skin.     

Temporal order and tactile patterns

Temporal order judgments (TOJs) were obtained for tactile stimuli presented to subjects' fingerpads. In one set of measurements, pairs of spatial patterns were presented successively to a single fingerpad (same-site condition), to two fingers on the same hand (ipsilateral condition), or to two fingers on opposite hands (bilateral condition). The subjects were instructed to report which one of the two patterns was presented first. TOJs were more accurate in the same-site condition than in either the ipsilateral or the bilateral conditions. In the ipsilateral and bilateral conditions, performance improved when judging which one of two locations received a stimulus first, although performance levels were still lower than in the same-site condition. Increasing the size of the pattern set from which the two patterns to be judged were drawn had only a slight effect on same-site performance and no effect on ipsilateral/bilateral performance; however, changing the nature of the patterns had a considerable effect on same-site performance and a smaller effect on ipsilateral/bilateral performance. Introducing an intensity imbalance between members of the pair of stimuli also had a large effect on same-site TOJs: a less intense stimulus tended to be judged as being presented first. In the bilateral condition, however, there was a small effect in the reverse direction: more intense stimuli tended to be judged as being presented first. The intensity imbalance had no effect in the ipsilateral condition. The results suggest that different mechanisms are responsible for TOJs for patterns presented to the same-site and to separate sites and, furthermore, that separate sites may constitute separate channels for spatial information.     

Tactile selective attention and temporal masking

The presentation of a nontarget stimulus to one fingerpad interferes with the identification of a target stimulus presented to a second fingerpad. This interference has been attributed to a failure of selective attention and, more specifically, to the nontarget’s eliciting a competing response. In the present study, the temporal interval between the target and nontarget was varied to determine the extent to which a nontarget primes a competing response. The results showed more interference when the nontarget was presented after the target than when it was presented before the target. Although still consistent with a response-competition explanation, this result offered no support for a priming explanation. The function relating the amount of interference to the temporal separation between the target and nontarget was similar to the functions obtained in studies of temporal masking, and this prompted a second experiment in which temporal masking was examined. These results, obtained with stimuli presented to the same fingerpad, indicate that response competition may be a major factor in temporal masking and that similar processes are involved in temporal masking and selective attention.     

The effects of complexity on the perception of vibrotactile patterns presented to separate fingers

Pairs of vibrotactile patterns were presented to subjects’ left middle and index fingerpads (unilateral presentation) or left and right index fingerpads (bilateral presentation), using two Optacon arrays. A set of simple (one-line) patterns and a set of complex (two-line) patterns were constructed sothat they were equally identifiable when presented individually. In Experiment 1, discrimination performance was lower for two-line patterns than it was for one-line patterns, and it was lower for unilateral presentation than it was for bilateral presentation. Communality, the number of lines that two patterns share in common, was a major factor in reducing discrimination performance for two-line patterns. Subjects’ abilities to identify one member of the pair of patterns were measured in Experiment 2. There were no significant differences in performance between pattern sets or type of presentation when subjects attended to a single pattern. However, when subjects were required to attend to both patterns, identification performance was lower for two-line patterns than it was for one-line patterns, and it was lower for unilateral presentation than it was for bilateral presentation. The results suggest that there are limited attentional resources for processing vibrotactile patterns and that more resources are available bilaterally than are available unilaterally.     

Vibrotactile masking: The role of response competition

When two tactile patterns, a target and a nontarget pattern, are presented in close temporal proximity to the same location, the nontarget pattern may interfere with the identification of the target. A series of experiments examined the extent to which the interference in target identification results from masking (interference in the representation of the target at an early stage of processing) or from response competition. A response competition view of pattern perception holds that both the target and nontarget are fully processed to the level of evoking responses. Interference is produced when subjects select the nontarget rather than the target. This view was tested with a paradigm developed in studies of selective attention. Pairs of tactile patterns were presented to subjects’ left index fingerpads. The amount of interference produced by a nontarget that is physically different from a target depends on whether the nontarget is associated with the same response as the target or a different response. The amount of masking also depends on the set of target and nontarget patterns that are used. The results support the conclusion that subjects have available a representation of both the target and the nontarget and that a substantial portion of the interference previously attributed to masking may be due to response competition.     

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets.

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation. The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers (on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation.     

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation. The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers4on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation.     

Syllables and spelling units affect feature integration in words

Three experiments showed that syllables and spelling patterns function as higher order units in word perception. Subjects were required to identify the color of a target letter in briefly presented words composed of different-colored letters. In Experiment 1, subjects incorrectly reported the color of a nontarget letter (conjunction error) more often in one-syllable words containing few spelling units than in two-syllable words containing many spelling units. Experiment 2 showed that subjects made more conjunction errors in one-syllable words than in two-syllable words when the number of spelling patterns was controlled. Experiment 3 showed that conjunction errors decreased as spelling units increased when the number of syllables was held constant. Experiments 1 and 3 also showed that more conjunction errors occurred within syllabic and spelling units than between these units. These findings are discussed in light of previous research on syllable and spelling pattern effects.     

The trajectory effect in intermodal temporal order judgments

Subjects judged which one of two patterns, a visual or a tactile pattern, had been presented first. The visual and tactile displays were placed in close spatial proximity. The patterns appeared to move across their respective displays. Although irrelevant to the temporal order judgment (TOJ), the direction of motion of the patterns--the trajectory--affected the judgments. When the leading pattern was moving towards the trailing pattern (consistent movement), subjects tended to judge it, correctly, as leading. When the leading pattern was moving away from the trailing pattern (inconsistent movement), subjects tended to judge it, incorrectly, as trailing. Changing the spatial position of the arrays such that the pattern trajectories were no longer towards one another eliminated the effect of movement on TOJs. Although there was a substantial difference in performance on consistent and inconsistent trials, there were no differences in subjects' ratings of their performances. The results demonstrate that the trajectory effect can be obtained multimodally. The issues whether the effect of motion alters the perceived temporal separation between the visual and tactile patterns, and whether the visual and tactile patterns are represented by a common framework, are discussed.     

The effect of shape and location on temporal masking of spatial vibrotactile patterns

Target patterns presented to uncued locations on a single fingerpad were followed by either same-shape (SS) maskers or different-shape (DS) maskers presented to either the same location (SLoc) or a different location (DLoc). DS maskers interfered with identification more when they were at SLoc than when they were at Dloc, but the reverse was true for SS maskers; they interfered more at DLoc than at SLoc. When targets were presented to cued locations, performance in the absence of maskers improved, but the pattern of interference from maskers resembled that for uncued presentation. The proportion of masker responses on incorrect trials revealed that both temporal masking and response competition may be involved in the effects of location on pattern identification.     

The temporal organization of hand, eye, and head movements during reaching and pointing

Two experiments are reported that address the issue of coordination of the eyes, head, and hand during reaching and pointing. Movement initiation of the eyes, head, and hand were monitored in order to make inferences about the type of movement control used. In the first experiment, when subjects pointed with the finger to predictable or unpredictable locations marked by the appearance of a light, no differences between head and eye movement initiation were found. In the second experiment, when subjects pointed very fast with the finger, the head started to move before the eyes did. Conversely, when subjects pointed accurately, and thus more slowly, with the finger, the eyes started to move first, followed by the head and finger. When subjects were instructed to point to the same visual target only with their eyes and head, both fast and accurately, however, eye movement always started before head movement, regardless of speed-accuracy instructions. These results indicate that the behavior of the eye and head system can be altered by introducing arm movements. This, along with the variable movement initiation patterns, contradicts the idea that the eye, head, and hand system is controlled by a single motor program. The time of movement termination was also monitored, and across both experiments, the eyes always reached the target first, followed by the finger, and then the head. This finding suggests that movement termination patterns may be a fundamental control variable.     

Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes

Response time can be delayed if a target stimulus appears at a location or object that was previously cued. This inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon has been attributed to a delay in activating attentional or motor processes to a previously cued stimulus. Two experiments required subjects to localize or identify a target stimulus. In Experiment 1, the subjects’ eyes were not monitored. In Experiment 2, the subjects’ eyes were monitored, and the subjects were instructed to either execute or withhold an eye movement to a target stimulus. The results indicated that IOR was always present for location and identification responses, supporting an attentional account of IOR. However, IOR was larger when eye movements were executed, indicating that a motor component can contribute to IOR. Finally, when eye movements were withheld, IOR was larger when a target was presented alone than when it was presented with a distractor, suggesting that IOR is larger for exogenous than for endogenous covert orienting. Together, the data indicate that IOR is composed of both an oculomotor component and an attentional component.     

Directional sensitivity to a tactile point stimulus moving across the fingerpad

The ability of subjects to discriminate between directions of a point contact moving across the fingerpad was examined. Subjects were required to report, using an adaptive two-interval, two-alternative forced-choice procedure, whether in two sequential stimuli the direction of motion changed in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. The overall mean orientation-change threshold across eight stimulus orientations was approximately 14°, with the lowest threshold for the point motion toward the wrist. This observed lower threshold in the distal-to-proximal direction is thought to be due to stretching of the skin at the tip of the fingernail, to which one may be particularly sensitive. For all orientations, thresholds were generally more uniform and higher than those reported on vibrotactile linear contactor arrays for horizontal and vertical orientations.