Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection.

Mordkoff, J. Toby; Miller, Jeff; Roch, Anne-Catherine

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.22.1.25

Cited by 79 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conjointly, responses within motor cortex were consistently lateralized to the hemisphere contralateral to the responding hand, even in the case of ''crossed'' conditions. A strong implication of these results is that the predominant interhemispheric interactions occur between visual brain areas, in agreement with previous studies (Mordkoff et al 1996;Marzi et al 1998;Braun et al 1999;Brandt et al 2000;Murray et al 2001), rather than motor areas (e.g. Thut et al 1999;Tettamanti et al 2002;Iacoboni and Zaidel 2003).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Visuo-motor pathways in humans revealed by event-related fMRI

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether different brain networks are involved in generating unimanual responses to a simple visual stimulus presented in the ipsilateral versus contralateral hemifield remains a controversial issue. Visuo-motor routing was investigated with event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) using the Poffenberger reaction time task. A 2 hemifield · 2 response hand design generated the ''crossed'' and ''uncrossed'' conditions, describing the spatial relation between these factors. Both conditions, with responses executed by the left or right hand, showed a similar spatial pattern of activated areas, including striate and extrastriate areas bilaterally, SMA, and M1 contralateral to the responding hand. These results demonstrated that visual information is processed bilaterally in striate and extrastriate visual areas, even in the ''uncrossed'' condition. Additional analyses based on sorting data according to subjects' reaction times revealed differential crossed versus uncrossed activity only for the slowest trials, with response strength in infero-temporal cortices significantly correlating with crossed-uncrossed differences (CUD) in reaction times. Collectively, the data favor a parallel, distributed model of brain activation. The presence of interhemispheric interactions and its consequent bilateral activity is not determined by the crossed anatomic projections of the primary visual and motor pathways. Distinct visuo-motor networks need not be engaged to mediate behavioral responses for the crossed visual field/ response hand condition. While anatomical connectivity heavily influences the spatial pattern of activated visuomotor pathways, behavioral and functional parameters appear to also affect the strength and dynamics of responses within these pathways.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Visuo-motor pathways in humans revealed by event-related fMRI

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The present paper addresses this issue within the framework of standard foreperiod paradigms. This work may not only contribute to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying force production, but also improve the interpretation of response force as an inferential tool in cognitive psychology (Abrams & Balota, 1991;Coles, Gratton, Bashore, Eriksen, & Donchin, 1985;Giray & Ulrich, 1993;Kantowitz, 1973;Miller, Franz, & Ulrich, 1997;Mordkoff, Miller, & Roch, 1996;Ulrich & Mattes, 1996). The first two experiments engage two conditions of foreperiod regularity to manipulate the predictability of stimulus occurrence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response force is sensitive to the temporal uncertainty of response stimuli

Mattes

Ulrich

1997

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined whether temporal uncertainty about the delivery of a response stimulus affects response force in a simple reaction time CRT) situation. All experiments manipulated the foreperiod; that is, the interval between a warning signal and the response stimulus. In the constant condition, foreperiod length was kept constant over a block of trials but changed from block to block In the variable condition, foreperiod length varied randomly from trial to trial. A visual warning and response stimulus were used in Experiment 1; response force decreased with foreperiod length in the variable condition, but increased in the constant condition. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that responses are less forceful when the temporal occurrence of the response stimulus is predictable. In a second experiment with an auditory warning signal and a response stimulus, response force was less sensitive to foreperiod manipulations. The third experiment manipulated both the modality and the intensity of the response signal and employed a tactile warning signal. This experiment indicated that neither the modality nor the intensity of the response signal affects the relation between response force and foreperiod length. An extension of Naatanen's (1971)motor-readiness model accounts for the main results.In a typical reaction time (RT) experiment, a warning signal precedes the imperative response stimulus.' Since the pioneering study of Woodrow (1914), it has been repeatedly documented that RT is strongly affected by the interval between the warning signal and the stimulus, that is, the foreperiod. According to Niemi and Naatanen (1981 ), the warning signal is used as a temporal reference for response preparation. Subjects estimate the point in time when the stimulus is delivered and try to synchronize response preparation with stimulus occurrence. Predictability ofthe stimulus and, hence, optimal response preparation depend on several foreperiod factors (for a review, see Niemi & Naatanen, 1981). A consistent finding is that factors favoring the exact prediction of the stimulus yield especially short RTs (e.g., constant foreperiods compared with variable ones). Some RT theorists (e.g., Sanders, 1990) assume that foreperiod manipulations affect the duration of motor processing, that is, the motoric portion ofRT.Given that foreperiod factors operate at a motoric level, one may ask whether these factors influence not only RT but also the exerted force in making the response. Recent studies (Giray, 1990;Jaskowski & Verleger, 1993) have tackled this question. Giray employed variable foreperiods in a simple RT task. Ineach trial, a foreperiod length was This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (UL 88/103). We appreciate the helpful comments of Hartmut Leuthold, Jeff Miller, and two anonymous reviewers. We are also indebted to Hiltraut Miiller-Gethmann for assistance in data collection and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Correspondence should be addressed to R. Ulric...

show abstract

“…For bimodal divided attention tasks, the RT gain observed with bimodal stimuli is usually larger than that predicted by separate activation models, so that coactivation models have been adopted (Giray & Ulrich, 1993;Gondan, Lange, Rösler, & Röder, 2004;Hughes, ReuterLorenz, Nozawa, & Fendrich, 1994;Miller, 1982Miller, , 1986Miller, , 1991Molholm et al, 2002;Plat, Praamstra, & Horstink, 2000;Schröger & Widmann, 1998). Different loci at which the coactivation may take place have been suggested: Multisensory interactions may take place (1) at perceptual stages (Hershenson, 1962;Hughes et al, 1994;Molholm et al, 2002), (2) at higher cognitive stages (e.g., decision or memory; Miller, 1982;Mordkoff & Yantis, 1991;Schröger & Widmann, 1998), and/or (3) during motor preparation and execution (Diederich & Colonius, 1987;Giray & Ulrich, 1993; but see Miller, Ulrich, & Lamarre, 2001;Mordkoff, Miller, & Roch, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, we tested whether an additional stimulus without response relevance would produce the same RT gain as an additional target stimulus (Mordkoff et al, 1996;Nickerson, 1973). Third, we examined whether the spatial relationship between the two stimuli of a bimodal event would influence the RTs and the size of the RTE.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory processing in the redundant-target effect: A behavioral and event-related potential study

Gondan

Niederhaus

Rösler

et al. 2005

Perception & Psychophysics

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a typical redundant-target experiment, participants are asked to respond to events of two modalities, which are presented either alone or simultaneously (Miller, 1982). Combined (bimodal) stimuli are called redundant because the same reaction is required for both targets, irrespective of their modality. Reaction times (RTs) to redundant targets are commonly found to be shorter than RTs to simple (unimodal) targets. Two alternative models have been suggested to explain this redundant-target effect (RTE). Separate activation models, or race models, hold that the two components of a bimodal event are processed in separate channels and that the channel that has first finished processing first triggers the response. By analogy, the probability of obtaining a six is higher when two dice are tossed instead of one. Similarly, the probability of getting an RT, t, lower than a given t 0 is higher for bimodal (e.g., auditory-visual, AV) than for unimodal (A or V) stimuli, resulting in a lower mean RT. This effect has been called statistical facilitation (Raab, 1962; see Figure 1). Given the RT distributions to simple stimuli, the redundancy gain that can be explained by statistical facilitation has a clearly defined upper limit, which is described by the race model inequality (Miller, 1982):A race model requires that this inequality should hold for the cumulative RT distributions for both unimodal and bimodal stimuli. If the redundancy gain surpasses that predicted by the race model, rejecting the race model in favor of a coactivation model is justified. Proponents of the latter model disagree with the separate processing view and suggest that information from the two modality channels is integrated at a particular processing level and subsequently processed as a combined entity. This processing stage gains from redundant information, resulting in faster responses to redundant stimuli.The race model is typically sufficient to explain the redundancy gain of healthy participants in simple unimodal detection tasks with two classes of visual stimuli (see, e.g., Corballis, 1998Corballis, , 2002; a weak violation was found by Miniussi, Girelli, & Marzi, 1998, which was, however, not statistically tested). Surprisingly, split-brain patients have displayed redundancy gains larger than those predicted by the race model when bilateral stimuli have been used (Corballis, 1998(Corballis, , 2002Reuter-Lorenz, Nozawa, Gazzaniga, & Hughes, 1995;Roser & Corballis, 2002 Participants respond more quickly to two simultaneously presented target stimuli of two different modalities (redundant targets) than would be predicted from their reaction times to the unimodal targets. To examine the neural correlates of this redundant-target effect, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to auditory, visual, and bimodal standard and target stimuli presented at two locations (left and right of central fixation). Bimodal stimuli were combinations of two standards, two targets, or a standard and a target, presented either from the same or from diff...

show abstract

Absence of coactivation in the motor component: Evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection.

Cited by 79 publications

References 28 publications

Visuo-motor pathways in humans revealed by event-related fMRI

Visuo-motor pathways in humans revealed by event-related fMRI

Response force is sensitive to the temporal uncertainty of response stimuli

Multisensory processing in the redundant-target effect: A behavioral and event-related potential study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About