scholarly journals Distractor inhibition: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials

2015 ◽  
Vol 98 ◽  
pp. 74-81
Author(s):  
Lisa Pramme ◽  
Angelika M. Dierolf ◽  
Ewald Naumann ◽  
Christian Frings
2002 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 289-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Miller ◽  
David Navon

Lateralized readiness potentials (LRPs) were measured in left/right/no-go tasks using compound global/local stimuli. In Experiment 1, participants responded to local target shapes and ignored global ones. RTs were affected by the congruence of the global shape with the local one, and LRPs indicated that irrelevant global shapes activated the responses with which they were associated. In Experiment 2, participants responded to conjunctions of target shapes at both levels, withholding the response if a target appeared at only one level. Global shapes activated responses in no-go trials, but local shapes did not. The results are consistent with partial-output models in which preliminary information about global shape can partially activate responses that are inconsistent with the local shape. They also demonstrate that part of the global advantage arises early, before response activation begins and probably before recognition of the local shape.


2009 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunitake Suzuki ◽  
Kuniyasu Imanaka

The goal of the present study was to examine whether a backward masking paradigm, in which a prime and a mask stimuli were consecutively presented with a short stimulus onset asynchrony affected the time needed for either the perceptual or motor stages of processing and the simple reaction times. The times needed for the perceptual and motor stages were evaluated by measuring the stimulus-locked and response-locked lateralized readiness potentials. The results showed that the onset of the stimulus-locked lateralized readiness potentials under the backward masking paradigm took place earlier than it did under the condition of a mask stimulus presented alone, whereas the onset of the response-locked lateralized readiness potentials did not significantly differ under different stimulus conditions. These results suggested that the participants responded to the masked prime stimulus despite being unaware of the prime stimulus. This may have been mediated by facilitation of the perceptual rather than motor stages.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e0132197
Author(s):  
Marieke K. van Vugt ◽  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Leigh Nystrom ◽  
Philip Holmes ◽  
Jonathan D. Cohen

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e90943 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marieke K. van Vugt ◽  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Leigh Nystrom ◽  
Philip Holmes ◽  
Jonathan D. Cohen

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (11) ◽  
pp. 2133-2146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Furstenberg ◽  
Assaf Breska ◽  
Haim Sompolinsky ◽  
Leon Y. Deouell

Intending to perform an action and then immediately executing it is a mundane process. The cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in this process of “proximal” intention formation and execution, in the face of multiple options to choose from, are not clear, however. Especially, it is not clear how intentions are formed when the choice makes no difference. Here we used behavioral and electrophysiological measures to investigate the temporal dynamics of proximal intention formation and “change of intention” in a free picking scenario, in which the alternatives are on a par for the participant. Participants pressed a right or left button following either an instructive visible arrow cue or a visible neutral “free-choice” cue, both preceded by a masked arrow prime. The goal of the prime was to induce a bias toward pressing the left or right button. Presumably, when the choice is arbitrary, such bias should determine the decision. EEG lateralized readiness potentials and EMG measurements revealed that the prime indeed induced an intention to move in one direction. However, we discovered a signature of “change of intention” in both the Instructed and Free-choice decisions. These results suggest that, even in arbitrary choices, biases present in the neural system for choosing one or another option may be overruled and point to a curious “picking deliberation” phenomenon. We discuss a possible neural scenario that could explain this phenomenon.


1995 ◽  
Vol 90 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 111-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Osman ◽  
Cathleen M. Moore ◽  
Rolf Ulrich

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document