Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2015 | Original Article

Task predictability influences the variable foreperiod effect: evidence of task-specific temporal preparation

Auteurs: Hannes Schröter, Teresa Birngruber, Daniel Bratzke, Jeff Miller, Rolf Ulrich

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2015

Abstract

Temporal preparation usually results in enhanced performance in choice reaction time tasks. The present study investigated to what extent temporal preparation involves increased readiness for task-specific processing requirements as opposed to increased task-independent readiness. Participants performed either a pitch, a letter, or a color discrimination task within a variable foreperiod paradigm and tasks alternated regularly between auditory and visual discriminations. In separate blocks of trials, the upcoming visual discrimination task was either predictable or unpredictable. We observed the standard variable foreperiod effect for both visual discrimination tasks irrespective of task predictability. Importantly, however, the variable foreperiod effect was larger when the visual discrimination task was predictable than when it was unpredictable. These results suggest that temporal preparation in choice reaction time tasks involves increased readiness for both task-independent and task-specific processing requirements.

vorige artikel A Stroop effect emerges in the processing of complex Chinese characters that contain a color-related radical

volgende artikel Conflict control in task conflict and response conflict

In order to test whether the sequential FP effect usually observed in standard choice RT tasks could be replicated within the present experimental design, a supplemental ANOVA with the additional factor of FP in the preceding trial (short vs. long) was performed on RT. Most importantly, this ANOVA revealed a significant interaction of FP in the preceding trial and FP, F(1,39) = 5.67, MSE = 1,076, p = 0.022, η _p ² = 0.127, reflecting a typical asymmetric sequential FP effect. The sequential FP effect tended to be more pronounced in blocks with two than with three tasks, as was indicated by the marginally significant three-way interaction of FP in the preceding trial, FP, and block type, F(1,39) = 3.31, MSE = 1,174, p = 0.076, η _p ² = 0.078.

It is under debate whether this configuration process is switch specific (task-set reconfiguration) or only more time consuming for switches than for repetitions (task updating; for a review, see Kiesel et al., 2010). This distinction, however, is not important for the interpretation of the present data because both accounts predict reduced RT for task switches when advance task preparation is possible. For the remainder of the discussion, we use the term advance task-set configuration.

Alegria, J. (1975). Sequential effects of foreperiod duration: Some strategical factors in tasks involving time uncertainty. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 1–10). London: Academic Press.

Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115(3), 602–639.CrossRefPubMed

Correa, Á., Lupiáñez, J., Milliken, B., & Tudela, P. (2004). Endogenous temporal orienting of attention in detection and discrimination tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 66(2), 264–278.CrossRefPubMed

Coull, J. T., & Nobre, A. C. (1998). Where and when to pay attention: the neural systems for directing attention to spatial locations and to time intervals as revealed by both PET and fMRI. The Journal of Neuroscience, 18(18), 7426–7435.PubMed

Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.

Elithorn, A., & Lawrence, C. (1955). Central inhibition—some refractory observations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7(3), 116–127.CrossRef

Frith, C. D., & Done, D. J. (1986). Routes to action in reaction time tasks. Psychological Research, 48(3), 169–177.CrossRefPubMed

Karlin, L. (1959). Reaction time as a function of foreperiod duration and variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 185–191.CrossRefPubMed

Karlin, L. (1966), Development of readiness to respond during short foreperiods. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(4), 505–509.CrossRefPubMed

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.CrossRefPubMed

Klemmer, E. T. (1956). Time uncertainty in simple reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51(3), 179–184.CrossRefPubMed

Lidji, P., Kolinsky, R., Lochy, A., & Morais, J. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: A piano in the head? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1189–1207.PubMed

Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 145–188.CrossRef

Los, S. A., & Agter, F. (2005). Reweighting sequential effects across different distributions of foreperiods: Segregating elementary contributions to nonspecific preparation. Perception and Psychophysics, 67(7), 1161–1170.CrossRefPubMed

Los, S. A., Knol, D. L., & Boers, R. M. (2001). The foreperiod effect revisited: Conditioning as a basis for nonspecific preparation. Acta Psychologica, 106(1), 121–145.CrossRefPubMed

Los, S. A., & Schut, M. L. (2008). The effective time course of preparation. Cognitive Psychology, 57(1), 20–55.CrossRefPubMed

Los, S. A., & Van den Heuvel, C. E. (2001). Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation during reaction time foreperiods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 370–386.PubMed

Mattes, S., & Ulrich, R. (1997). Response force is sensitive to the temporal uncertainty of response stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 59(7), 1089–1097.CrossRefPubMed

Miniussi, C., Wilding, E., Coull, J., & Nobre, A. C. (1999). Orienting attention in time: modulation of brain potentials. Brain, 122(8), 1507–1518.CrossRefPubMed

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.CrossRefPubMed

Müller-Gethmann, H., Ulrich, R., & Rinkenauer, G. (2003). Locus of the effect of temporal preparation: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 40(4), 597–611.CrossRefPubMed

Näätänen, R. (1970). The diminishing time-uncertainty with the lapse of time after the warning signal in reaction-time experiments with varying fore-periods. Acta Psychologica, 34, 399–419.CrossRefPubMed

Näätänen, R., Muranen, V., & Merisalo, A. (1974). Timing of expectancy peak in simple reaction time situation. Acta Psychologica, 38(6), 461–470.CrossRefPubMed

Niemi, P., & Lehtonen, E. (1982). Foreperiod and visual stimulus intensity: A reappraisal. Acta Psychologica, 50(1), 73–82.CrossRefPubMed

Niemi, P., & Näätänen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 133–162.CrossRef

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.CrossRef

Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99(2), 113–129.CrossRefPubMed

Simon, J. R., & Slaviero, D. P. (1975). Differential effects of a foreperiod countdown procedure on simple and choice reaction time. Journal of Motor Behavior, 7(1), 9–14.CrossRef

Steinborn, M. B., Rolke, B., Bratzke, D., & Ulrich, R. (2008). Sequential effects within a short foreperiod context: Evidence for the conditioning account of temporal preparation. Acta Psychologica, 129(2), 297–307.CrossRefPubMed

Steinborn, M. B., Rolke, B., Bratzke, D., & Ulrich, R. (2009). Dynamic adjustment of temporal preparation: Shifting warning signal modality attenuates the sequential foreperiod effect. Acta Psychologica, 132(1), 40–47.CrossRefPubMed

Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Temporal predictability facilitates action, not perception. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1335–1340.CrossRefPubMed

Thomaschke, R., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). Response specific temporal expectancy: Evidence from a variable foreperiod paradigm. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73(7), 2309–2322.CrossRef

Thomaschke, R., Wagener, A., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). The scope and precision of specific temporal expectancy: Evidence from a variable foreperiod paradigm. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73(3), 953–964.CrossRef

Vallesi, A., Lozano, V. N., & Correa, Á. (2013). Dissociating temporal preparation processes as a function of the inter-trial interval duration. Cognition, 127(1), 22–30.CrossRefPubMed

Vallesi A., & Shallice T. (2007) Developmental dissociations of preparation over time: Deconstructing the variable foreperiod phenomena. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1377–1388.PubMed

Wagener, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2010). Temporal cueing of target-identity and target-location. Experimental Psychology, 57(6), 436–445.CrossRefPubMed

Woodrow, H. (1914). The measurement of attention. Psychological Monographs, 17(5), 1–158.CrossRef

Titel: Task predictability influences the variable foreperiod effect: evidence of task-specific temporal preparation
Auteurs: Hannes Schröter
Teresa Birngruber
Daniel Bratzke
Jeff Miller
Rolf Ulrich
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0550-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2015

The benefit of no choice: goal-directed plans enhance perceptual processing

Memory for faces: the effect of facial appearance and the context in which the face is encountered

Local feature suppression effect in face and non-face stimuli

Conflict control in task conflict and response conflict

Crossmodal encoding of motor sequence memories

Preferred, but not objective temperature predicts working memory depletion