Spatial interactions between consecutive manual responses

Abstract

We have shown that the latency to initiate a reaching movement is increased if its direction is the same as a previous movement compared to movements that differ by 90° or 180° (Cowper-Smith and Westwood in Atten Percept Psychophys 75:1914-1922, 2013). An influential study (Taylor and Klein in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1639-1656, 2000), however, reported the opposite spatial pattern for manual keypress responses: repeated responses on the same side had reduced reaction time compared to responses on opposite sides. In order to determine whether there are fundamental differences in the patterns of spatial interactions between button-pressing responses and reaching movements, we compared both types of manual responses using common methods. Reaching movements and manual keypress responses were performed in separate blocks of trials using consecutive central arrow stimuli that directed participants to respond to left or right targets. Reaction times were greater for manual responses made to the same target as a previous response (M = 390 ms) as compared to the opposite target (M = 365 ms; similarity main effect: p < 0.001) regardless of whether the response was a reaching movement or a keypress response. This finding is broadly consistent with an inhibitory mechanism operating at the level of motor output that discourages movements that achieve the same spatial goal as a recent action.

Intervening response events between identification targets do not always turn repetition benefits into repetition costs

“…Concerning stimulus-response repetition costs, Spadaro et al (2012) have demonstrated their robustness in simple stimulus-identification tasks with intervening response events. Perhaps more importantly still, recent data suggest that stimulus-response repetition costs may be observed in simple stimulus-identification tasks at fixation without intervening response events, as long as the interval between the cue and target is extended beyond the typical CTOA (Ding, He, Satel, & Wang, 2016;Avery, Cowper-Smith, & Westwood, 2015). It thus appears as if, at least in relatively simple two stimulus identification tasks at fixation, some form of inhibition may-eventually-follow from the initial cue representation.…”

Inhibition of return: An information processing theory of its natures and significance

“…Various response types have been used to explore the effect, such as manual detection (e.g., Posner & Cohen, 1984;Maylor & Hockey, 1985), manual localization (e.g., Rafal, Egly, & Driver, 1994;Fischer, Pratt, & Neggers, 2003;Avery, Cowper-Smith, & Westwood, 2015), manual discrimination (e.g., Hartley & Kieley, 1995;Lupianez, Milan, Tornay, Madrid, & Tudela, 1997), temporal order judgments (e.g., Posner et al, 1985;Maylor, 1985), and saccadic eye movements (e.g., Vaughan, 1984;Taylor & Klein, 2000;Lim, Eng, Janssen & Satel, 2018).…”