Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals

Miller, Jeff

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(82)90010-x

Cited by 1,184 publications

(1,859 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,794

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to this model, we observed in the monkey shorter RTs for the multisensory stimuli than those obtained for each unisensory stimuli, suggesting that the two components of a multisensory stimulus are not processed independently, but rather converge and are integrated in the central nervous system. These data are in line with co-activation models (e.g., Miller, 1982), in which neural responses from stimulus pairs interact and are pooled prior to behavioral response initiation, for which the threshold is met more rapidly by multisensory stimuli than by unisensory stimuli. In the monkey we have shown that the auditory-visual effect, violating the ''Race Model" (Miller, 1982), disappeared at high intensities inferring that multisensory interaction in the behaving monkey obeys the rule of inverse effectiveness that proposes a higher multisensory benefit when the unisensory stimuli are weak (Cappe et al, 2007b).…”

Section: Behavioral Evidence In the Monkeysupporting

confidence: 85%

“…These data are in line with co-activation models (e.g., Miller, 1982), in which neural responses from stimulus pairs interact and are pooled prior to behavioral response initiation, for which the threshold is met more rapidly by multisensory stimuli than by unisensory stimuli. In the monkey we have shown that the auditory-visual effect, violating the ''Race Model" (Miller, 1982), disappeared at high intensities inferring that multisensory interaction in the behaving monkey obeys the rule of inverse effectiveness that proposes a higher multisensory benefit when the unisensory stimuli are weak (Cappe et al, 2007b). The main unanswered question is where in the brain is computed this integration that leads to an increased efficiency of the sensory-motor output.…”

Section: Behavioral Evidence In the Monkeysupporting

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multisensory anatomical pathways

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to interact with the multisensory world that surrounds us, we must integrate various sources of sensory information (vision, hearing, touch. . .). A fundamental question is thus how the brain integrates the separate elements of an object defined by several sensory components to form a unified percept. The superior colliculus was the main model for studying multisensory integration. At the cortical level, until recently, multisensory integration appeared to be a characteristic attributed to high-level association regions. First, we describe recently observed direct cortico-cortical connections between different sensory cortical areas in the non-human primate and discuss the potential role of these connections. Then, we show that the projections between different sensory and motor cortical areas and the thalamus enabled us to highlight the existence of thalamic nuclei that, by their connections, may represent an alternative pathway for information transfer between different sensory and/or motor cortical areas. The thalamus is in position to allow a faster transfer and even an integration of information across modalities. Finally, we discuss the role of these non-specific connections regarding behavioral evidence in the monkey and recent electrophysiological evidence in the primary cortical sensory areas.

show abstract

Section: Behavioral Evidence In the Monkeysupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Behavioral Evidence In the Monkeysupporting

confidence: 85%

Multisensory anatomical pathways

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The race model assumes that (a) there is a nonnegative random vector (X, Y) (defined by a distribution with respect to some probability space) such that RT XY ϭ st min(X, Y), and (b) X ϭ st RT X , Y ϭ st RT Y . The latter assumption is often referred to as context invariance, stipulating that the signal detec-1 According to the Web of Science (May, 2005), Miller's (1982 article has 198 citations, with 60 of them over the last 3 years.2 Miller (1986) introduced the use of this geometric measure to assess the degree of violation of the inequality and also pioneered a bootstrapping test. For reasons unbeknown to us, the latter seems to have been ignored completely in the subsequent literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The race model inequality (RMI) proposed in Miller (1982) has become the standard testing tool in many RT studies. 1 It stipulates that the RT distribution function for redundant stimuli is never larger than the sum of the RT distributions for the single stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The race model inequality: Interpreting a geometric measure of the amount of violation.

Colonius¹,

Diederich²

2006

Psychological Review

110

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An inequality by J. O. Miller (1982) has become the standard tool to test the race model for redundant signals reaction times (RTs), as an alternative to a neural summation mechanism. It stipulates that the RT distribution function to redundant stimuli is never larger than the sum of the distribution functions for 2 single stimuli. When many different experimental conditions are to be compared, a numerical index of violation is very desirable. Widespread practice is to take a certain area with contours defined by the distribution functions for single and redundant stimuli. Here this area is shown to equal the difference between 2 mean RT values. This result provides an intuitive interpretation of the index and makes it amenable to simple statistical testing. An extension of this approach to 3 redundant signals is presented.Keywords: redundant signals, race model inequality, negative dependenceIn the redundant signals paradigm for simple reaction time (RT), the observer must initiate a response as quickly as possible following the detection of any stimulus onset. A typical finding is that of redundancy gain: Responses are faster, on average, when two or more signals are presented simultaneously than when a single signal appears. Since the pioneering study by Todd (1912), this redundant signals effect (RSE) has been replicated many times for both manual and saccadic RTs, and under different experimental settings, for example, comparing uni-versus multimodal stimulation (Amlôt, Walker, Driver, & Spence, 2003;Diederich, 1995;Diederich & Colonius, 1987;Diederich, Colonius, Bockhorst, & Tabeling, 2003;Gielen, Schmidt, & Van den Heuvel, 1983;Hughes, Nelson, & Aronchick, 1998;Miller, 1982Miller, , 1986Molholm, Ritter, Javitt, & Foxe, 2004), single versus multiple stimuli within the same modality (e.g., Schwarz & Ischebeck, 1994), or monocular versus binocular stimulation (Blake, Martens, & DiGianfillipo, 1980;Westendorf & Blake, 1988) and also for specific populations (e.g., Corballis, 1998; Marzi et al., 1996, for hemianopics;Miller, 2004, for individuals who have undergone split-brain surgery; Reuter-Lorenz, Nozawa, Gazzaniga, & Hughes, 1995;. Raab (1962) was the first to propose a race model for simple RT such that (a) each individual stimulus elicits a detection process performed in parallel to the others and (b) the winner's time determines the observable RT. This model suggests that RSE is generated by statistical facilitation: If detection latencies are interpreted as (nonnegative) random variables, the time to detect the first of several redundant signals is faster, on average, than the detection time for any single signal. A generalization of Raab's model was recently developed in Miller and Ulrich (2003).Testing the race model amounts to testing whether an observed RT speed-up is too large to be attributed to statistical facilitation (viz., probability summation). The race model inequality (RMI) proposed in Miller (1982) has become the standard testing tool in many RT studies. 1 It stipulates that the RT dist...

show abstract

“…This result rules out the possibility of a mixture of grouped and nongrouped trials in which the underlying retrieval process was parallel and yielded RT 1 facilitation on nongrouped trials. Matched t tests performed on each distribution quantile (for precedent and validating simulations see Miller, 1982, Footnote 3) comparing the 900-ms SOA level with each of the other three SOA levels revealed significant effects for 10, 10, and 9 of the 12 quantiles for the 0-ms, 100-ms, and 300-ms conditions, respectively. It should be kept in mind that these are nonindependent comparisons because the 900-ms reference condition was used in all three cases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 68%

In Search of Cross-Talk Facilitation in a Dual-Cued Recall Task.

Rickard¹,

Bajic²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite earlier evidence that the presence of 2 redundant cues can facilitate activation of a common response, T. C. Rickard and D. Bajic (2004) found no dual-cue facilitation in the case of cued recall, provided that each cue-response association was learned independently. In this study the authors investigated the generality of their results using a dual-task cross-talk design. There was no evidence of dual-cue facilitation for compatible cue trials in the case of associative independence. Race models as well as at least some limited capacity parallel retrieval accounts can be eliminated by these and related results. It appears instead that a preretrieval stage performance bottleneck precludes cued recall through more than 1 independently represented cue-response association at a time.Keywords: cued-recall, dual-task, redundant cues, cross-talk, facilitation This article addresses the conditions under which the presence of redundant cues can facilitate memory recall. In addition to the theoretical value of this topic as outlined below, there is applied value in demarcating conditions of redundant-cue facilitation. Consider a task, such as driving, that requires fast and highly accurate responses to cues. A red traffic light, for example, sometimes co-occurs with other cues to stop, such as the red tail lights and deceleration of other cars or pedestrians beginning to cross a street. If redundant cues always yield faster correct responses, then they should be designed into performance environments wherever possible when fast and accurate decisions need to be made. New technologies, for example, might allow computers to sense impending collision and provide an extra warning cue to the driver. On the other hand, if there are some conditions under which redundant cues either do not produce facilitation or perhaps even cause distraction, then cognitive principles will need to be established for predicting redundant cue effects.Most tasks that have been studied to date exhibit response facilitation in the presence of redundant cues, regardless of whether subjects are intentionally processing both cues. These tasks include target detection (e.g., Miller, 1982), the congruent condition of the Stroop task (for a review see MacLeod, 1991), flanker tasks (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974), semantic categorization (Logan & Schulkind, 2000), and other choice response time (RT) tasks. Because the Logan and Schulkind (2000) study addressed recall from long-term memory (as opposed to execution of rules in working memory), it is particularly relevant to the current study. On each trial of Logan and Schulkind's first experiment, subjects were presented with two cues, one above the other: two letters, two numbers, a letter and a number, or vice versa. For each cue, starting with the top one, subjects pressed a button that corresponded to the correct stimulus category, letter or number. First task responses were faster on trials with either two letter cues or two number cues (i.e., compatible trials) than on trials having one letter cue a...

show abstract

Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals

Cited by 1,184 publications

References 66 publications

Multisensory anatomical pathways

Multisensory anatomical pathways

The race model inequality: Interpreting a geometric measure of the amount of violation.

In Search of Cross-Talk Facilitation in a Dual-Cued Recall Task.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About