Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Many cognitive tasks involve a response conflict between the response selected on the basis of the task-relevant attribute and that primed by an irrelevant attribute. Although response priming has been extensively investigated, we still have little evidence on whether it entails both excitatory and inhibitory processes and the way in which these processes are modulated by the prior occurrence of a conflict between-response alternatives. To shed light on these issues, we tested motor cortex excitability during a two-choice compatibility task (a Simon task) by delivering single pulses of transcranial magnetic stimulation and recording the resulting motor evoked potentials (MEPs). We obtained consistent behavioural and MEP results suggesting that the presentation of a left- or right-side stimulus causes the activation of the ipsilateral response, which—in turn—inhibits the alternative response. Both processes are modulated by the spatial compatibility of the preceding trial. In trials following compatible trials (i.e. after conditions wherein the primed response was the correct one), we found response efficiency advantages and disadvantages of compatible and incompatible trials, respectively, which were mirrored by an increase of the excitability of the motor cortex primed by stimulus position and by a parallel decrease of the contralateral cortex excitability. Both the facilitation and interference components of the behavioural effect and the excitatory and inhibitory effects of the stimulus position on motor excitability were smaller after neutral trials (i.e. when the stimulus of the previous trial was aligned with fixation, thus not priming any response) and absent after incompatible trials (i.e. after having experienced a conflict between the primed and correct responses). These results are consistent with the idea that location-based response priming is under control of a conflict monitoring mechanism that strengthens ipsilateral response activation and contralateral response inhibition after compatible trials and weakens both processes after incompatible trials.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 742–748. CrossRef
Burle, B., van den Wildenberg, W., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2005). Dynamics of facilitation and interference in cue-priming and Simon tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 619–641. CrossRef
Cona, G., Treccani, B., Umiltà, C. A. (2016). Is cognitive control automatic? New insights from transcranial magnetic stimulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1624–1630.
De Jong, R., Liang, C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus- response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731–750. PubMed
Eimer, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 837–854. PubMed
Hughes, M. M., Linck, J. A, Bowles, A. R., Koeth, J. T, & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Alternatives to switch-cost scoringin the task-switching paradigm: their reliability and increased validity. Behavioral and Research Methods, 46, 702–721.
Kennett, S., & Driver, J. (2014). Within-hemifield posture changes affect tactile—visual exogenous spatial cueing without spatial precision, especially in the dark. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 76, 1121–1135. CrossRef
Kunde, W., Pfister, R., & Janczyk, M. (2012). The locus of tool-transformation costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 703–714. PubMed
Mordkoff, T. (1998). The gating of irrelevant information in selective-attention tasks. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 3, 193.
Nielsen, J. F. (1996). Logarithmic distribution of amplitudes of compound muscle action potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Journal of Clinial Neurophysiology, 13, 423–434. CrossRef
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. C. (1991). Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33–48.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory and application. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention & Performance, XIX (pp. 494–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rach S., Diederich A., & Colonius H. (2011). On quantifying multisensory interaction effects in reaction time and detection rate. Psychological Research, 75, 77–94.
Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., Pascual-Leone, A., & Safety of TMS Consensus Group (2009). Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology, 20, 2008–2039. CrossRef
Rossini, P. M., Barker, A. T., Berardelli, A., Caramia, M. D., Caruso, G., Cracco, R. Q., Dimitrijević M. R., Hallett M., Katayama Y, Lücking C. H., et al. (1994). Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application. Report of an IFCN committee. Electro encephalography and Clinical neurophysiology, 91, 79–92.
Sartori, L., Betti, S., Castiello, U. (2013). Corticospinal excitability modulation during action observation. Journal of Visual Experiments, 82, e51001.
Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2006). Active masks and active inhibition: A comment on Lleras and Enns (2004) and on Verleger, Jaśkowski, Aydemir, van der Lubbe, and Groen (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 484–494.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002a). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002b). E-prime reference guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Stoffels, E. J. (1996). On stage robustness and response selection: Further evidence. Acta Psychologica, 91, 67–88. CrossRef
Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based priming in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363. PubMed
Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umiltà, C., & Bassignani, F. (2000). The role of LTM links and STM links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 648–670. PubMed
Teufel, C., Alexis, D. M., Clayton, N. S., & Davis, G. (2010). Mental-state attribution drivesrapid, reflexive gaze following. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 695–705.
Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Treccani, B., Milanese, N., & Umiltà, C. (2010). Influence on Simon and SNARC effects of a nonspatial stimulus-response mapping: Between-task logical recoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1239–1254. PubMed
Umiltà, C., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (1999). Facilitation and interference components in the Simon effect. Archives italiennes de Biologie, 137, 139–149. PubMed
Valle-Inclàn, F., Hackley, S. A., & de Labra, C. (2002). Attention and response selection in the Simon task. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel. (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIX (pp. 474–493). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751. PubMed
Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2005). Dynamic aspects of stimulus-response correspondence: evidence for two mechanisms involved in the simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 453–464. PubMed
Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2007). A Simon effect in memory retrieval: Evidence for the response-discrimination account. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 984–988.
- Sequential modulation of (bottom–up) response activation and inhibition in a response conflict task: a single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation study
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg