Control of response timing occurs during the simple reaction time interval but on-line for choice reaction time.

Abstract

The preparation of multiple element movements has been examined for decades, with no clear explanation offered for the disparate results observed. Results from 2 experiments are presented and, in conjunction with previous results, a theoretical interpretation is offered regarding the preparatory processes that occur before, during and after the reaction time (RT) interval for multiple element movements during both simple and choice RT paradigms. In Experiment 1, number of elements and timing complexity were manipulated in a simple RT key-press task, using a startling acoustic stimulus to probe advance preparation. Both startle and nonstartle RT increased with number of movement elements and for a movement with increased timing complexity, providing evidence that the control of response timing occurs during the RT interval. In Experiment 2, the production of key-press movements of varying number of elements was compared in a simple versus choice RT paradigm. Results indicated that simple RT was affected by the number of elements, yet choice RT was not. Additionally, choice RT trials showed significantly longer interresponse intervals compared with those observed in simple RT trials, providing evidence for online processing in choice RT. The results of both studies, together with previous findings, suggest that planning of the timing of the onsets of the elements is prepared during simple RT, whereas planning of other aspects of the sequence of elements seems to occur in the foreperiod prior to the "go" signal. Conversely, in the choice RT paradigm, timing seems to be controlled online. This explanation may bring closure on difficulties encountered in over 50 years of research examining response preparation for complex movements.

Responses to startling acoustic stimuli indicate that movement-related activation is constant prior to action: a replication with an alternate interpretation

“…Furthermore, in contrast to the predictions of intersensory facilitation, pairing a SAS with a visual IS does not result in a further reduction in RT latency, providing additional support for a separate, faster neural pathway (Carlsen et al 2011a). Although startle trials typically produce RT latencies that are below what would be considered possible through voluntary initiation channels, recent evidence has been provided that startle trials can exhibit delayed RTs due to lowered levels of preparation (Maslovat et al 2013(Maslovat et al , 2014b. Thus, response latency alone cannot be used to differentiate between response triggering, stimulus intensity, and intersensory facilitation effects.…”

“…Although startle trials typically produce RT latencies that are below what would be considered possible through voluntary initiation channels, recent evidence has been provided that startle trials can exhibit delayed RTs due to lowered levels of preparation (Maslovat et al. , ). Thus, response latency alone cannot be used to differentiate between response triggering, stimulus intensity, and intersensory facilitation effects.…”

“…If the processes of response preparation and initiation are considered within the context of a neural accumulator framework (e.g., Hanes and Schall ) in which neural activation increases to some subthreshold level prior to the go‐signal (i.e., preparation), and then increases above threshold following the go‐signal (i.e., initiation), then the response latency following the SAS allows for conclusions to be drawn regarding the preparatory state of the motor system at any given time (e.g., Maslovat et al. , ,b; Carlsen et al. ).…”

Using Video Game Telemetry Data to Research Motor Chunking, Action Latencies, and Complex Cognitive‐Motor Skill Learning

“…. This structure (which we call a perception action cycle [PAC]) contains a number of latency components, including First‐Action‐Latency (an analog of laboratory reaction time, e.g., Sternberg, Monsell, Knoll, & Wright, ), Between‐Action‐Latency (also known as the interkeystroke interval, e.g., Yamaguchi & Logan, ), Action‐Count (the number of actions in a sequence, which in laboratory studies is often called sequence length, e.g., Maslovat, Klapp, Jagacinski, & Franks, ), and latency to the next attentional shift (Latency‐to‐End, which is often omitted in laboratory research but which we will consider here).…”

Nucleus accumbens and caudate atrophy predicts longer action selection times in young and old adults

“…Specifically, it has been suggested that subtracting reaction time (RT) in a single task from RT in a multiple-choice condition reflects processes related to action selection (Donders, 1969). However, recent studies demonstrated that this also reflects action preparation (Bastian et al, 2003;Maslovat et al, 2014), and therefore did not sufficiently isolate the selection process. In a recent study, we investigated the complexity of action selection in young adults using the subtraction method with different task variants to isolate the action selection component .…”