Anxiety-Related Biases in Visual Orienting and Spatial Motor Response Selection Independently Assessed by a Probe-Classification Task

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martien G.S. Schrooten ◽  
Fren T.Y. Smulders ◽  
Karin Mogg ◽  
Brendan P. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Motor Response ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Classification Task ◽  
Visual Orienting ◽  
Probe Classification

Motor response selection in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders

2006 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger W. Simmons ◽  
Jennifer D. Thomas ◽  
Susan S. Levy ◽  
Edward P. Riley
Keyword(s):  
Motor Response ◽  
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Fetal Alcohol ◽  
Spectrum Disorders ◽  
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum

scholarly journals Disentangling the Role of Cortico-Basal Ganglia Loops in Top–Down and Bottom–Up Visual Attention: An Investigation of Attention Deficits in Parkinson Disease

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 1215-1237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Tommasi ◽  
Mirta Fiorio ◽  
Jérôme Yelnik ◽  
Paul Krack ◽  
Francesca Sala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Attention ◽  
Parkinson Disease ◽  
Attentional Capture ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
The Other ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Movement Initiation ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Brain Functions

It is solidly established that top–down (goal-driven) and bottom–up (stimulus-driven) attention mechanisms depend on distributed cortical networks, including prefrontal and frontoparietal regions. On the other hand, it is less clear whether the BG also contribute to one or the other of these mechanisms, or to both. The current study was principally undertaken to clarify this issue. Parkinson disease (PD), a neurodegenerative disorder primarily affecting the BG, has proven to be an effective model for investigating the contribution of the BG to different brain functions; therefore, we set out to investigate deficits of top–down and bottom–up attention in a selected cohort of PD patients. With this objective in mind, we compared the performance on three computerized tasks of two groups of 12 parkinsonian patients (assessed without any treatment), one otherwise pharmacologically treated and the other also surgically treated, with that of a group of controls. The main behavioral tool for our study was an attentional capture task, which enabled us to tap the competition between top–down and bottom–up mechanisms of visual attention. This task was suitably combined with a choice RT and a simple RT task to isolate any specific deficit of attention from deficits in motor response selection and initiation. In the two groups of patients, we found an equivalent increase of attentional capture but also comparable delays in target selection in the absence of any salient distractor (reflecting impaired top–down mechanisms) and movement initiation compared with controls. In contrast, motor response selection processes appeared to be prolonged only in the operated patients. Our results confirm that the BG are involved in both motor and cognitive domains. Specifically, damage to the BG, as it occurs in PD, leads to a distinct deficit of top–down control of visual attention, and this can account, albeit indirectly, for the enhancement of attentional capture, reflecting weakened ability of top–down mechanisms to antagonize bottom–up control.

scholarly journals Role of human premotor dorsal region in learning a conditional visuomotor task

2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 445-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pranav J. Parikh ◽  
Marco Santello
Keyword(s):  
Motor Response ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Center Of Mass ◽  
Selection Response ◽  
Response Monitoring ◽  
Dorsal Region ◽  
Visuomotor Task ◽  
Conditional Learning ◽  
Stimulus Identification

Conditional learning is an important component of our everyday activities (e.g., handling a phone or sorting work files) and requires identification of the arbitrary stimulus, accurate selection of the motor response, monitoring of the response, and storing in memory of the stimulus-response association for future recall. Learning this type of conditional visuomotor task appears to engage the premotor dorsal region (PMd). However, the extent to which PMd might be involved in specific or all processes of conditional learning is not well understood. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), we demonstrate the role of human PMd in specific stages of learning of a novel conditional visuomotor task that required subjects to identify object center of mass using a color cue and to apply appropriate torque on the object at lift onset to minimize tilt. TMS over PMd, but not vertex, increased error in torque exerted on the object during the learning trials. Analyses of digit position and forces further revealed that the slowing in conditional visuomotor learning resulted from impaired monitoring of the object orientation during lift, rather than stimulus identification, thus compromising the ability to accurately reduce performance error across trials. Importantly, TMS over PMd did not alter production of torque based on the recall of learned color-torque associations. We conclude that the role of PMd for conditional learning is highly sensitive to the stage of learning visuomotor associations. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Conditional learning involves stimulus identification, motor response selection, response monitoring, memory encoding, and recall of the learned association. Premotor dorsal (PMd) has been implicated for conditional learning. However, the extent to which PMd might be involved in specific or all stages of conditional learning is not well understood. The novel finding of our study is that PMd appears to be involved with monitoring motor responses, a sensorimotor integration stage essential for conditional learning.

scholarly journals Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence for Abnormalities in Response Selection in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Differences in Activation Associated with Response Inhibition but Not Habitual Motor Response

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 478-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy J. Suskauer ◽  
Daniel J. Simmonds ◽  
Sunaina Fotedar ◽  
Joanna G. Blankner ◽  
James J. Pekar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Functional Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Children With Adhd ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder

Impaired response inhibition is thought to be a core deficit in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Prior imaging studies investigating response inhibition in children with ADHD have used tasks involving different cognitive resources, thereby complicating the interpretation of their findings. In this study, a classical go/no-go task with a well-ingrained stimulus-response association (green = go; red = no-go) was used in order to minimize extraneous cognitive demands. Twenty-five children with ADHD and 25 typically developing (TD) children between the ages of 8 and 13 years and group-matched for IQ and performance on the go/no-go task were studied using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Analyses were used to examine differences in activation between the ADHD and TD groups for “go” (habitual motor response) and “no-go” (requiring inhibition of the motor response) events. Region-of-interest analyses revealed no between-group difference in activation in association with “go” events. For “no-go” events, the children with ADHD demonstrated significantly less activation than did TD controls within a network important for inhibiting a motor response to a visual stimulus, with frontal differences localized to the pre-supplementary motor area. Although blood oxygenation level-dependent fMRI data show no differences between children with ADHD and TD children in association with a habituated motor “go” response, during “no-go” events, which require selecting not to respond, children with ADHD show diminished recruitment of networks important for response inhibition. The findings suggest that abnormalities in circuits important for motor response selection contribute to deficits in response inhibition in children with ADHD and lend support to the growing awareness of ADHD-associated anomalies in medial frontal regions important for the control of voluntary actions.

Stop Task After-Effects

2009 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Enticott ◽  
John L. Bradshaw ◽  
Mark A. Bellgrove ◽  
Daniel J. Upton ◽  
James R.P. Ogloff
Keyword(s):  
Execution Time ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Preceding Trial ◽  
Movement Preparation ◽  
Preparation Time ◽  
After Effects ◽  
Stop Task ◽  
Selection Processes ◽  
Stop Trial

In the stop task, response time to the go signal is increased when the immediately preceding trial involves the presentation of a stop signal. A recent explanation suggests that these “after-effects” are due to mechanisms that occur prior to the completion of response selection processes, but it is possible that they instead may reflect a slowed motor response (i.e., deliberate slowing after response selection). The participants completed a novel stop task that allows a differentiation between the time taken to prepare a movement (which incorporates response selection processes) and the time taken to execute a movement (i.e., speed of motor response). If mechanisms underlying stop task after-effects occur prior to the completion of response selection processes, then slowing should only occur during movement preparation. Movement preparation and execution time during go trials were analysed according to the characteristics of the preceding trial. Slowing after a stop trial was found during movement preparation time (regardless of inhibition success on that stop trial), and it further increased during this period when the primary task stimulus was repeated. There was also evidence for general after-effects during movement execution time, but no effect of repetition. These findings support the current theoretical accounts that suggest that repetition-based stop task after-effects are attributable to a mechanism that occurs prior to the completion of response selection processes, and also indicate a possible switch to a more conservative response set (as in signal detection theory terms) that results in deliberate slowing of movement.

The Psychological Refractory Period as a Function of Performance of a First Response

1967 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 350-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Refractory Period ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Expectancy Theory ◽  
Response Component ◽  
First Response ◽  
Motor Component ◽  
Channel Theory

Proponents of a “single channel” theory of the psychological refractory period have not specified whether the single channel occupies only the decision component of the response selection, only the motor or response component, or both. In this experiment, the delay in the RT to the second of two successively presented stimuli was examined as a function of whether or not an overt motor response was made to the first stimulus, keeping the decision component constant. It was found that in both conditions RT2 was delayed, suggesting that the decision component was a part of the single channel. However, RT2 was delayed by a significantly greater amount if a motor response was required, indicating that the motor component is part of the single channel as well. Implications of the results for an expectancy theory of the psychological refractory period are discussed.

scholarly journals The Effect of Cerebellar tDCS on Sequential Motor Response Selection

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 738-749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryant J. Jongkees ◽  
Maarten A. Immink ◽  
Olga D. Boer ◽  
Fatemeh Yavari ◽  
Michael A. Nitsche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Response ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Cerebellar Tdcs

scholarly journals Alcohol intoxication, but not hangover, differentially impairs learning and automatization of complex motor response sequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Opitz ◽  
Filippo Ghin ◽  
Jan Hubert ◽  
Joris C. Verster ◽  
Christian Beste ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Binge Drinking ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Alcohol Intoxication ◽  
Motor Planning ◽  
Response Sequence ◽  
Acute Intoxication ◽  
Learning Context ◽  
Complex Motor ◽  
Alcohol Hangover

AbstractBehavioral automatization usually makes us more efficient and less error-prone, but may also foster dysfunctional behavior like alcohol abuse. Yet, it has remained unclear whether alcohol itself causes the shift from controlled to habitual behavior commonly observed in alcohol use disorder (AUD). We thus investigated how the acute and post-acute effects of binge drinking affect the automatization of motor response sequences and the execution of automated vs. controlled motor response sequences. N = 70 healthy young men performed a newly developed automatization paradigm once sober and once after binge drinking (half of them intoxicated and half of them hungover). While we found no significant effects of alcohol hangover, acute intoxication (~ 1.2 ‰) had two dissociable effects: Firstly, it impaired the automatization of complex motor response sequence execution. Secondly, it eliminated learning effects in response selection and pre-motor planning processes. The results suggest that alcohol hangover did not affect controlled or automated processes, and disprove the assumption that alcohol intoxication generally spares or facilitates motor response sequence automatization. As these effects could be specific to the investigated explicit learning context, acute intoxication might potentially still improve the execution of pre-existing automatisms and/or the implicit acquisition of motor response sequence automatisms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document