Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-01-2011 | Original Article

Increasing stimulus intensity does not affect sensorimotor synchronization

Auteurs: Anita Białuńska, Simone Dalla Bella, Piotr Jaśkowski

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2011

Abstract

When people synchronize taps with isochronously presented stimuli, taps usually precede the pacing stimuli [negative mean asynchrony (NMA)]. One explanation of NMA [sensory accumulation model (SAM), Aschersleben in Brain Cogn 48:66–79, 2002] is that more time is needed to generate a central code for kinesthetic-tactile information than for auditory or visual stimuli. The SAM predicts that raising the intensity of the pacing stimuli shortens the time for their sensory accumulation, thereby increasing NMA. This prediction was tested by asking participants to synchronize finger force pulses with target isochronous stimuli with various intensities. In addition, participants performed a simple reaction-time task, for comparison. Higher intensity led to shorter reaction times. However, intensity manipulation did not affect NMA in the synchronization task. This finding is not consistent with the predictions based on the SAM. Discrepancies in sensitivity to stimulus intensity between sensorimotor synchronization and reaction-time tasks point to the involvement of different timing mechanisms in these two tasks.

vorige artikel Eye movements during language-mediated visual search reveal a strong link between overt visual attention and lexical processing in 36-month-olds

volgende artikel Referred sensations induced by a mirror box in healthy subjects

Note, however, that self-generated tactile stimuli are perceived as weaker than the same stimuli externally generated (Bays, Wolpert, & Flanagan, 2005; Blakemore, Wolpert, & Frith, 1998). Therefore, differences in transmission speed between self-generated and externally generated tactile feedback, affecting perceived stimulus intensity, may still account for the NMA.

1.5 Newtons correspond to 300 µV, which is the force intensity typically needed to obtain a response using the computer keyboard or a response pad. One Newton is equivalent to the force needed to give a mass of 1 kg an acceleration of 1 m/s².

The Greenhouse-Geisser correction for inhomogeneity of variance was applied whenever appropriate; uncorrected degrees of freedom, epsilon value and probability level following correction are reported.

Results in both conditions were confirmed by non-parametric tests (i.e. Friedman’s test).

High latency jitter of low intensity stimuli predicts many theories of stimuli detection (Grice, 1972; Ractliff & Rouder, 1998; Smith, 1995).

Aschersleben, G. (2002). Temporal control of movements in sensorimotor synchronizations. Brain and Cognition, 48, 66–79.CrossRefPubMed

Aschersleben, G., Gehrke, J., & Prinz, W. (2001). Tapping with peripheral nerve block: A role for tactile feedback in the timing of movements. Experimental Brain Research, 136, 331–339.CrossRef

Aschersleben, G., Gehrke, J., & Prinz, W. (2004). A psychophysical approach to action timing. In C. Kaernbach, E. Schröger, & H. Müller (Eds.), Psychophysics beyond sensation: Laws and invariants of human cognition (pp. 117–136). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (1995). Synchronizing actions with events: The role of sensory information. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(3), 305–317.

Aschersleben, G., Stenneken, P., Cole, J., & Prinz, W. (2002). Timing mechanisms in sensorimotor synchronization. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 227–244). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bays, P. M., Wolpert, D. M., & Flanagan, J. R. (2005). Perception of the consequences of self-action is temporally tuned and event-driven. Current Biology, 15, 1125–1128.CrossRefPubMed

Billon, M., Semjen, A., Cole, J., & Gauthier, G. (1996). The role of sensory information in the production of periodic finger-tapping sequences. Experimental Brain Research, 110, 243–251.CrossRef

Blakemore, S. J., Wolpert, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 635–640.CrossRefPubMed

Cardoso-Leite, P., Gorea, A., & Mamassian, P. (2007). Temporal-order judgment and simple reaction times: Evidence for a common processing system. Journal of Vision, 7(6), 1–14.CrossRef

Dunlap, K. (1910). Reactions on rhythmic stimuli, with attempt to synchronize. Psychological Review, 17, 399–416.CrossRef

Fraisse, P. (1980). Les synchronisations sensori-motrices aux rythmes (Sensorimotor synchronizations to rhythms). In J. Requin (Ed.), Anticipation et comportement (pp. 233–257). Paris: Centre National.

Gehrke, J. (1995). Sensorimotor synchronization: The intensity of afferent feedback affects the timing of movements (paper 15/95). Munich: Max Planck Institut for Psychological Research.

Goebl, W., & Palmer, C. (2008). Tactile feedback and timing accuracy in piano performance. Experimental Brain Research, 186, 471–479.CrossRef

Hary, D., & Moore, G. P. (1985). Temporal tracking and synchronizationstrategies. Human Neurobiology, 4, 73–77.PubMed

Jaśkowski, P. (1992). Temporal-order judgment and reaction time for short and long stimuli. Psychological Research, 54, 141–145.CrossRefPubMed

Jaśkowski, P. (1996). Simple reaction time and perception of temporal order: Dissociations and hypotheses. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 707–730.PubMed

Jaśkowski, P. (1999). Reaction time and temporal-order judgment as measures of perceptual latency: The problem of dissociations. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spacial and temporal events (pp. 265–283). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRef

Jaśkowski, P., Rybarczyk, K., & Jaroszyk, F. (1994). On the relationship between latency of auditory evoked potentials, simple reaction time and stimulus intensity. Psychological Research, 56, 59–65.CrossRefPubMed

Jaśkowski, P., van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Wauschkuhn, B., Wascher, E., & Verleger, R. (2000). The influence of time pressure and cue validity on response force in an S1–S2 paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 105, 89–105.CrossRefPubMed

Jaśkowski, P., & Verleger, R. (1993). A clock paradigm to study the relationship between expectancy and response force. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 163–174.PubMed

Jaśkowski, P., & Włodarczyk, D. (2006). Task modulation of the effect of brightness on reaction time and response force. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 61, 98–112.CrossRefPubMed

Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., & Jessell, T. M. (2000). Principles of neural science (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kolers, P. A., & Brewster, J. M. (1985). Rhythms and responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 11, 150–167.CrossRefPubMed

Large, E. W. (2008). Resonating to musical rhythm: Theory and experiment. In S. Grondin (Ed.), The psychology of time. Bingley: Emerald.

Large, E. W., & Jones, M. R. (1999). The dynamics of attending: How we track time varying events. Psychological Review, 106(1), 119–159.CrossRef

Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lütkenhöner, B., Krumbholz, K., Lammertmann, C., Seither-Preisler, A., Steinsträter, O., & Patterson, R. D. (2003). Localization of primary auditory cortex in humans by magnetoencephalography. Neuroimage, 18, 58–66.CrossRefPubMed

Mates, J. (1994a). A model of synchronization of motor acts to a stimulus sequence: I. Timing and error corrections. Biological Cybernetics, 70, 463–473.CrossRefPubMed

Mates, J. (1994b). A model of synchronization of motor acts to a stimulus sequence: II Stability analysis, error estimation and simulations. Biological Cybernetics, 70, 475–484.CrossRefPubMed

Mates, J., & Aschersleben, G. (2000). Sensorimotor synchronization: The impact of temporally displaced auditory feedback. Acta Psychologica, 104, 29–44.CrossRefPubMed

Mates, J., Radil, T., & Pöppel, E. (1992). Cooperative tapping: Time control under different feedback conditions. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 691–704.

Menendez, A., Lit, A. (1983). Effects of test-flash and steady background luminance on simple visual reaction time (RT) and perceived simultaneity (PC) (Abstract). Investigative Opthalmology and Visual Science, 24(Suppl), 95.

Michon, J. A. (1967). Timing in temporal tracking. Assen: van Gorcum.

Miller, J. O., & Schwartz, W. (2006). Dissociations between reaction times and temporal order judgments: A diffusion model approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 2, 394–412.CrossRef

Miller, J. O., Ulrich, R., & Rinkenauer, G. (1999). Effects of stimulus intensity on the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1454–1471.CrossRef

Mordkoff, J. T., Miller, J. O., & Roch, A. C. (1996). Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 22, 25–41.CrossRefPubMed

Neumann, O., Esselmann, U., & Klotz, W. (1993). Differential effects of visual-spatial attention on response latency and temporal-order judgment. Psychological Research, 56, 26–34.CrossRefPubMed

Neumann, O., & Niepel, M. (2004). Timing of perception and perception of time. In C. Kaernbach, E. Schröger, & H. Müller (Eds.), Psychophys-ics beyond sensation: Laws and invariants of human cognition (pp. 245–269). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Paillard, J. (1948). Quelques données psychophysiologiques relatives au déclenchement de la commande motrice (Some psychophysiological data relating to the triggering of motor commands). L’Année Psychologique, 47–48, 28–47.

Repp, B. H. (2000). Compensation for subliminal timing perturbations in perceptual-motor synchronization. Psychological Research, 63, 106–128.CrossRefPubMed

Repp, B. H. (2003). Rate limits in sensorimotor synchronization with auditory and visual sequences: The synchronization threshold and the benefits and costs of interval subdivision. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 355–370.CrossRefPubMed

Repp, B. H. (2005). Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 969–992.

Repp, B. H., & Doggett, R. (2007). Tapping to a very slow beat: A comparison of musicians and non-musicians. Music Perception, 24, 367–376.CrossRef

Repp, B. H., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Towards a psychophysics of agency: Detecting gain and loss of control over auditory action effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 469–482.CrossRefPubMed

Repp, B. H., & Penel, A. (2004). Rhythmic movement is attracted more strongly to auditory than to visual rhythms. Psychological Research, 68, 252–270.CrossRefPubMed

Roufs, J. A. J. (1974). Dynamic properties of vision: V Perception lag and reaction time in relation to flicker and flash thresholds. Vision Research, 14, 853–869.CrossRefPubMed

Sanford, A. J. (1971). Effects of changes in the intensity of white noise on simultaneity judgements and simple reaction time. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Experimental Psychology, 23(A), 296–303.

Sanford, A. J. (1974). Attention bias and the relation of perception lag to simple reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 443–446.CrossRefPubMed

Spencer, R., Zelaznik, H. N., Diedrichsen, J., & Ivry, R. B. (2003). Disrupted timing of discontinuous but not continuous movements by cerebellar lesions. Science, 300, 1437–1439.CrossRefPubMed

Stenneken, P., Aschersleben, G., Cole, J., & Prinz, W. (2002). Self-induced versus reactive triggering of synchronous movements in a deafferented patient and control subjects. Psychological Research, 66, 40–49.CrossRefPubMed

Thaut, M. H., Miller, R. A., & Schauer, L. M. (1998). Multiple synchronization strategies in rhythmic sensorimotor tasks: Phase vs. period correction. Biological Cybernetics, 79, 241–250.CrossRefPubMed

Vaughan, J., Mattson, T. R., & Rosenbaum, D. A. (1998). The regulation of contact in rhythmic tapping. In D. A. Rosenbaum & C. E. Collyer (Eds.), Timing of behavior: neural, computational, and psychological perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Vorberg, D., & Wing, A. (1996). Modeling variability and dependence in timing. In H. Heuer & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action 2 (pp. 181–262). London: Academic Press.

Vos, P. G., Mates, J., & van Kruysbergen, N. W. (1995). The perceptual centre of a stimulus as the cue for synchronization to a metronome: Evidence from asynchronies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A(4), 1024–1040.

Waszak, F., & Gorea, A. (2004). A new look on the relation between perceptual and motor responses. Visual Cognition, 11, 947–963.CrossRef

Titel: Increasing stimulus intensity does not affect sensorimotor synchronization
Auteurs: Anita Białuńska
Simone Dalla Bella
Piotr Jaśkowski
Publicatiedatum: 01-01-2011
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0282-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2011

Learning at any rate: action–effect learning for stimulus-based actions

Attentional capture and hold: the oculomotor correlates of the change detection advantage for faces

No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation

Editorial

Referred sensations induced by a mirror box in healthy subjects

Automatic attention lateral asymmetry in visual discrimination tasks