Cortical plasticity of spatial stimulus-response associations: electrophysiological and behavioral evidence

Neuroreport ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 973-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Angrilli ◽  
Marco Zorzi ◽  
Mariaelena Tagliabue ◽  
Luciano Stegagno ◽  
Carlo Umiltà
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Plasticity ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatial Stimulus ◽  
Behavioral Evidence

scholarly journals Effects of Mixed versus Blocked Design on Stimulus Evaluation: Combining Underadditive Effects

2003 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Menno van der Schoot ◽  
Sander A. Los ◽  
Fren T. Y. Smulders ◽  
Albert Kok
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatial Stimulus ◽  
Stimulus Evaluation ◽  
Single Block ◽  
Dual Route ◽  
Design Type ◽  
Dual Route Model ◽  
Additional Support ◽  
Alternative Routes ◽  
Stimulus Degradation

According to the asynchronous discrete coding model of Miller, two manipulations should display underadditive effects on reaction time if they slow down noncontingent stages associated with the processing of two separable dimensions of a stimulus. Under additive effects are also predicted by a dual route model when a task variable is factorially varied with design type (mixed vs blocked). Interpretations of both underadditive effects and their combination were evaluated. Intact and degraded stimuli were presented to 18 young adults either in a single block (mixed) or in separate blocks (blocked). Spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility was manipulated in all conditions. Stimulus degradation and S-R compatibility interacted underadditively, but only in blocked presentations. Both interpretations of underadditive effects were supported. Eye-movement registrations provided additional support for the alternative routes model.

scholarly journals Effects of acoustic warning signal intensity in the control of visuospatial interference

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Cappucci ◽  
Ángel Correa ◽  
Rico Fisher ◽  
Torsten Schubert ◽  
Juan Lupiáñez
Keyword(s):  
Warning Signal ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Warning Signals ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatial Stimulus ◽  
Spatial Attributes ◽  
Task Irrelevant ◽  
Open Question ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Spatial Stroop

AbstractPrevious studies have reported increased interference when a task-irrelevant acoustic warning signal preceded the target presentation in cognitive tasks. However, the alerting-congruence interaction was mostly observed for tasks measuring Flanker and Simon interferences but not for Stroop conflict. These findings led to the assumption that warning signals widen the attentional focus and facilitate the processing of irrelevant spatial characteristics. However, it is not clear whether these effects are because of the temporal information provided by the warning signal or because of their alerting effects. Based on these findings, and on the open question about the nature of the warning signal intervention on visuospatial interferences, we decided to test the impact of the warning signal on the processing of irrelevant spatial features, by using a procedure suitable for measuring both Simon and spatial Stroop interferences. We also manipulated the intensity of the warning signal to study the effect of the task-irrelevant characteristics of warning signals in visuospatial interferences. For the Simon conflict, results demonstrated an increased interference provoked by the presence (Experiment 1) and intensity (Experiment 2) of warning signals. In contrast, neither the presence nor the intensity of warning signals affected the spatial Stroop interference. Overall, these findings suggest that the impact of warning signals primarily depends on the processing of irrelevant spatial attributes and on the type of conflict (e.g., spatial stimulus-response interference in Simon vs. stimulus-stimulus interference in spatial Stroop). In general, acoustic warning signals facilitate the automatic response activation, but their modulatory effect depends on the task setting involved.

Auditory Warning Signals Affect Mechanisms of Response Selection

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rico Fischer ◽  
Franziska Plessow ◽  
Andrea Kiesel
Keyword(s):  
Selective Attention ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Relevant Stimulus ◽  
Attention Task ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatial Stimulus ◽  
Direct Route ◽  
Stimulus Features ◽  
Indirect Route

Irrelevant tone (accessory) stimuli facilitate performance in simple and choice reaction time tasks. In the present study, we combined accessory stimulation with a selective attention paradigm in order to investigate its influence on mechanisms of response selection. In the framework of a spatial stimulus-response compatibility task (Simon task), we tested whether accessory stimuli selectively affect bottom up triggered response activation processes (e.g., direct route processing), processing of task-relevant stimulus features (indirect route processing), or both/none. Results suggest a two-component effect of accessory stimuli within this selective attention task. First, accessory stimuli increased the Simon effect due to beneficial direct route processing. Second, accessory stimuli generally decreased reaction times indicating facilitation of indirect route processing.

A Role for Set in the Control of Automatic Spatial Response Activation

2008 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan F. Risko ◽  
Derek Besner
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Color Discrimination ◽  
Localization Task ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatial Stimulus ◽  
Spatial Response ◽  
Spatial Attributes ◽  
Automatic Activation ◽  
Response Activation

Abstract. Spatial stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility effects are widely assumed to reflect the automatic activation of a spatial response by the spatial attributes of a stimulus. The experiments reported here investigate the role of the participant's set in enabling or interacting with this putatively automatic spatial response activation. Participants performed a color discrimination task (Experiment 1) or a localization task (Experiment 2). In each experiment, two different S-R mappings were used and a task-cue indicated the appropriate mapping on each trial. S-R compatibility and the time between the task-cue and target were manipulated, and compatibility effects were assessed as a function of (a) the time between the task-cue and the stimulus, and (b) whether the S-R mapping repeated or switched on consecutive trials. Critically, whether response mappings repeated or switched on consecutive trials determined the relation between compatibility effects and the time between task-cue and stimulus. These results are discussed in terms of an interaction between automatic spatial response activation and the participant's set.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document