Common Neural Mechanisms for Response Selection and Perceptual Processing

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 1095-1110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuhong Jiang ◽  
Nancy Kanwisher
Keyword(s):  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Perceptual Processing ◽  
Spatial Processing ◽  
Bold Response ◽  
Mapping Rule ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Central Bottleneck ◽  
Behavioral Evidence

Behavioral evidence supports a dissociation between response selection (RS; stimulus-to-response [S—R] mapping) and perceptual discrimination (PD): The former may be subject to a central processing bottleneck, whereas the latter is not (Pashler, 1994). We previously (Jiang & Kanwisher, 2003) identified a set of frontal and parietal regions involved in RS as those that produce a stronger signal when subjects follow a difficult S—R mapping rule than an easy mapping rule. Here, we test whether any of these regions are selectively activated by RS and not perceptual processing, as predicted by the central bottleneck view. In Experiment 1, subjects indicated which of four parallel lines was unique in length; PD was indexed by a higher BOLD response when the discrimination was difficult versus easy. Stimuli and responses were closely matched across conditions. We found that all regions-of-interest (ROIs) engaged by RS were also engaged by perceptual processing, arguing against the existence of mechanisms exclusively involved in RS. In Experiments 2 and 3, we asked what processes might go on in these ROIs, such that they could be recruited by both RS and perceptual processing. Our data argue against an account of this common activation in terms of spatial processing or general task difficulty. Thus, PD may recruit the same central processes that are engaged by RS.

Localizing practice effects in dual-task performance

2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 860-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Sangals ◽  
Maria Wilwer ◽  
Werner Sommer
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Practice Effects ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Dual Task Performance ◽  
Central Bottleneck ◽  
Task Processing

Practice effects on dual-task processing are of interest in current research because they may reveal the scope and limits of parallel task processing. Here we used onsets of the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), a time marker for the termination of response selection, to assess processing changes after five consecutive dual-task sessions with three stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) and priority on Task 1. Practice reduced reaction times in both tasks and the interference between tasks. As indicated by the LRP, the reduction of dual-task costs can be explained most parsimoniously by a shortening of the temporal demands of central bottleneck stages, without assuming parallel processing. However, the LRP also revealed a hitherto unreported early activation over the parietal scalp after practice in the short SOA condition, possibly indicating the isolation of stimulus–response translation from other central processing stages. In addition, further evidence was obtained from the LRP for a late motoric bottleneck, which is robust against practice.

scholarly journals Dual task interference on early perceptual processing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Duncan ◽  
Amélie Roberge ◽  
Ulysse Fortier-Gauthier ◽  
Daniel Fiset ◽  
Caroline Blais ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Refractory Period ◽  
Visual Memory ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Sensory Modality ◽  
Perceptual Processing ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Temporal Proximity ◽  
Response Modality ◽  
Visual Spatial

AbstractWhen two tasks, Task 1 and Task 2, are conducted in close temporal proximity and a separate speeded response is required for each target (T1 and T2), T2 report performance decreases as a function of its temporal proximity to T1. This so-called psychological refractory period (PRP) effect on T2 processing is largely assumed to reflect interference from T1 response selection on T2 response selection. However, interference on early perceptual processing of T2 has been observed in a modified paradigm, which required changes in visual-spatial attention, sensory modality, task modality, and response modality across targets. The goal of the present study was to investigate the possibility of early perceptual interference by systematically and iteratively removing each of these possible non perceptual confounds, in a series of four experiments. To assess T2 visual memory consolidation success, T2 was presented for a varying duration and immediately masked. T2 report accuracy, which was taken as a measure of perceptual—encoding or consolidation—success, decreased across all experimental control conditions as T1–T2 onset proximity increased. We argue that our results, in light of previous studies, show that central processing of a first target, responsible for the classical PRP effect, also interferes with early perceptual processing of a second target. We end with a discussion of broader implications for psychological refractory period and attentional blink effects.

scholarly journals Picture Novelty Influences Response Selection and Inhibition: The Role of the In-Group Bias and Task-Difficulty

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e0165470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artyom Zinchenko ◽  
Waich Mahmud ◽  
Musrura Mefta Alam ◽  
Nadia Kabir ◽  
Md. Mamun Al-Amin
Keyword(s):  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
And Task

scholarly journals Common Neural Substrates for Response Selection across Modalities and Mapping Paradigms

2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 1080-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuhong Jiang ◽  
Nancy Kanwisher
Keyword(s):  
Response Selection ◽  
Target Position ◽  
Neural Substrates ◽  
Brain Regions ◽  
Human Information Processing ◽  
Central Process ◽  
Response Mapping ◽  
Manual Task ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Auditory Tasks

In many situations, people can only compute one stimulus-to-response mapping at a time, suggesting that response selection constitutes a “central processing bottleneck” in human information processing. Using fMRI, we tested whether common or distinct brain regions were involved in response selection across visual and auditory inputs, and across spatial and nonspatial mapping rules. We isolated brain regions involved in response selection by comparing two conditions that were identical in perceptual input and motor output, but differed in the complexity of the mapping rule. In the visual—manual task of Experiment 1, four vertical lines were positioned from left to right, and subjects pressed one of four keys to report which line was unique in length. In the auditory—manual task of Experiment 2, four tones were presented in succession, and subjects pressed one of four keys to report which tone was unique in duration. For both visual and auditory tasks, the mapping between target position and key position was either spatially compatible or incompatible. In the verbal task of Experiment 3, subjects used nonspatial mappings that were either compatible (“same” if colors matched; “different” if they mismatched) or incompatible (the opposite). Extensive activation overlap was observed across all three experiments for incompatible versus compatible mapping in bilateral parietal and frontal regions. Our results indicate that common neural substrates are involved in response selection across input modalities and across spatial and nonspatial domains of stimulus-to-response mapping, consistent with behavioral evidence that response selection is a central process.

Behavioral evidence of filling-in at the blind spot of the monkey

1994 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1103-1113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hidehiko Komatsu ◽  
Ikuya Murakami
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Visual Fields ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Neural Mechanisms ◽  
Opposite Field ◽  
Normal Visual Field ◽  
Saccade Task ◽  
Behavioral Evidence ◽  
Blind Spots

AbstractIn human subjects, the blind spot is perceptually filled-in by color and brightness from the surrounding visual field. The present behavioral study examined the occurrence of color filling-in at the blind spot in monkeys. First, the location of the blind spot was determined using a monocular saccade task. The blind spots were located on the horizontal meridian at approximately 15–17 deg from the fixation point in the temporal visual field. Then, filling-in at the blind spot was tested by determining if the monkey could discriminate between an annulus presented on the blind spot and a homogeneous disk in the normal visual field. In this task, the monkey was required to make a saccade to a homogeneous disk of the same color and size as an annulus presented simultaneously in the opposite field. Both stimuli were large enough to cover the blind spot and the inner circle of the annulus was confined inside the blind spot. All four monkeys tested performed this task correctly in over 80% of the trials. However, when one eye was covered and the annulus was presented on the blind spot of the uncovered eye, performance deteriorated significantly. To confirm that these results reflected filling-in, one monkey was trained to maintain fixation when two identical homogeneous disks appeared in opposite visual fields. When only one eye was uncovered, and the annulus was presented on the blind spot of the uncovered eye, the monkey maintained fixation in most of the trials. These results show that monkeys were unable to distinguish an annulus from a homogeneous disk when the annulus was presented on the blind spot. This indicates that color filling-in occurs at the blind spot in monkeys and opens possibility to physiological experiments to study the neural mechanisms of filling-in.

The Effect of Varying Task Difficulty on Subjective Workload

1985 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 765-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yei-Yu Yen ◽  
Christopher D. Wickens ◽  
Sandra G. Hart
Keyword(s):  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Subjective Evaluation ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Equal Weight ◽  
Integration Process ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Cognitive Response ◽  
Subjective Workload ◽  
Response Execution

The goal of the present study was to determine whether or not retrospective workload ratings would reflect the average demands of the entire block of trials or whether one segment within the block would have more weight in determining the magnitudes of ratings than another. Performance data within a block of trials almost perfectly reflected the different task difficulty manipulations: reaction times (but not movement times) reflected variations in the difficulty of the more cognitive response selection component whereas movement times (but not reaction times) reflected variations in the difficulty of the response execution component. Subjective ratings consistently reflected the combined demands of both task components averaged across levels of difficulty even when their levels of difficulty were varied within the block of trials. In every case, it appeared that all of the trials within a block were given equal weight in the composite subjective evaluation. These results suggest that subjective workload is not a specific retrieval of experiences heeded in working memory. Rather, it may reflect the experiences of an ongoing integration process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document