Neurophysiology of Implicit Timing in Serial Choice Reaction-Time Performance

Abstract

Neural representations of time for the judgment of temporal durations are reflected in electroencephalographic (EEG) slow brain potentials, as established in time production and perception tasks. Here, we investigated whether anticipatory processes in reaction-time procedures are governed by similar mechanisms of interval timing. We used a choice reaction task with two different, temporally regular stimulus presentation regimes, both with occasional deviant interstimulus intervals. Temporal preparation was shown in the form of adjustments in time course of slow brain potentials, such that they reached their maximum amplitude just before a new trial, independent of the duration of the interstimulus interval. Preparation was focused on a brief time window, demonstrated by a drop in amplitude of slow potentials as the standard interval had elapsed in deviant interstimulus intervals. Implicit timing influencing perceptual processing was shown in reduced visual-evoked responses to delayed stimuli after a deviant interstimulus interval and in a reduction of EEG ␣ power over the visual cortex at the time when the standard interval had elapsed. In contrast to explicit timing tasks, the slow brain potential manifestations of implicit timing originated in the lateral instead of the medial premotor cortex. Together, the results show that temporal regularities set up a narrow time window of motor and sensory attention, demonstrating the operation of interval timing in reaction time performance. The divergence in slow brain potential distribution between implicit and explicit timing tasks suggests that interval timing for different behaviors relies on qualitatively similar mechanisms implemented in distinct cortical substrates.

Effect of target change during the simple attack in fencing

“…The findings of Praamstra, Kourtis, Fei Kwok, and Ooterveld (2006) support this contention by demonstrating that in multiple-choice tasks with a reaction time, participants tend to anticipate implicitly or unconsciously the time intervals, delaying the reaction time.…”

Rhythmic entrainment: Why humans want to, fireflies can’t help it, pet birds try, and sea lions have to be bribed

“…Canolty and Knight (2010) argued that the rhythmic, periodic quality inherent in motor systems, together with the evolution of sensory systems to serve motor control (i.e., their role as guidance systems for moving bodies), gives rise to an integrated system in which sensory information will be best processed if it is packaged by the sensory systems into Brhythmic volleys.F urthermore, sensory stimuli that are in fact objectively rhythmic cause the entrainment of brain oscillations, an effect that has been shown in humans, macaque monkeys, and zebrafish (Lakatos, Karmos, Mehta, Ulbert, & Schroeder, 2008;Saleh, Reimer, Penn, Ojakangas, & Hatsopoulos, 2010;Sumbre, Muto, Baier, & Poo, 2008). In macaques and humans, at least, this propagation of timing extends up to and includes the motor system, as is evidenced by decreased reaction times under conditions of rhythmic input (Lakatos et al, 2008;Praamstra, Kourtis, Kwok, & Oostenveld, 2006;Saleh et al, 2010); the activation of motor planning areas by passive listening (Chen, Penhune, & Zatorre, 2008;Grahn & Brett, 2007), the time course of which suggests a predictive mechanism (Fujioka, Trainor, Large, & Ross, 2012); and the activation of cell populations in the premotor cortex of rhesus macaques that appear to be stimulus-predicting cells, firing in response to regularly timed visual or auditory stimuli .…”

“…In the research cited above on rhythmic sensory input driving the motor system in humans and macaques (Lakatos et al, 2008;Praamstra et al, 2006;Saleh et al, 2010), it is particularly noteworthy that this occurred only when the subject was actively attending to the stimulus. Further evidence that complex brains are able to entrain to some stimuli but filter out others has come from the fact that humans are less likely to entrain a rhythmic behavior with a partner they don't like (Miles, Griffighs, Richardson, & Macrae, 2010), and that dolphins are more likely to synchronize during social than during nonsocial behaviors (Connor et al, 2006).…”

The influence of test experience and NK1 receptor antagonists on the performance of NK1R-/- and wild type mice in the 5-Choice Serial Reaction-Time Task

“…These two test conditions challenge the performance of The influence of test experience and NK1 receptor antagonists on the performance of NK1R-/-and wild type mice in the 5-Choice Serial Reaction-Time Task mice in the 5-CSRTT in different ways (Humby et al, 2005;Patel et al, 2006;Sanchez-Roige et al, 2012). In particular, in the VITI, it is not possible to predict when the light cue will appear after trial initiation, and so this test avoids the potential confound of animals using interval-timing to prompt their responses, which is thought to occur with the LITI (Praamstra et al, 2006;Sanchez-Roige et al, 2012). Because these two test conditions seem to reveal different performance deficits (Yan et al, 2011), we thought it advisable to test mice under both conditions.…”