Stimulus-response compatibility in the programming of speech

Abstract

Subjects chose between sequences of one syllable (e.g., 19i/ vs. /bi/), two syllables (e.g., /gibi/ vs. /gubu/), and three syllables (e.g., /gibidi/ vs. gubudu/), when Iii sequences were signaled by high-pitched tones and lui sequences were signaled by low-pitched tones (high compatibility), or the reverse (low compatibility). Choice times were additively affected by sequence length and compatibility. A second experiment showed attenuated compatibility effects for sequences with different vowels in the first and second syllables. These results replicate previously reported results for choices between finger sequences, which suggests that the same programming methods are used in both output domains. Evidently, choices between response sequences can be achieved by selecting a distinguishing parameter and assigning it in a serial fashion to partially prepared motor subprograms.An emerging view of human movement control holds that abstract parameters are used in the programs for forthcoming movement sequences. For example, abstract timing information for movement sequences has been inferred from the fact that typing , writing , arm positioning (Armstrong, 1970;Shapiro, 1977), and walking (Shapiro, Zernicke, Gregor, & Diestel, 1981) exhibit invariant timing relationships among successive movement elements (see Rosenbaum, 1985;Schmidt, 1975). Similar sorts of invariances for force (Freund & Budingen, 1978;Ghez, 1979) have led to the proposal that force is another abstract parameter used in motor programming (Meyer, Smith, & Wright, 1982).Discovering abstract programming parameters raises the question of how the parameters are set during the programming process. Inhoff, Rosenbaum, Gordon, and Campbell (1984) addressed this question by conducting choice reaction-time (RT) experiments in which subjects chose between two homologous (mirror-image) fmger sequences cued by signals that were either compatibly or incompatibly mapped to the hands performing the sequences. Stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility was This paper is based on a Division ill examination (equivalent to a senior honors thesis) by the secondauthor and submitted to Hampshire College in partial fulfillment of the bachelor's degree. The research was supported in part by Grants BNS-8120104 and BNS-8408634 from the NationalScienceFoundationand ResearchCareer Development Award 1 K04 NS00942-{}I from the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke to the first author. We thank Alice Healy, David Meyer, Lynne Baker-Ward, Judith Kroll, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. Correspondence should be addressed to David A. Rosenbaum, School of Communications and Cognitive Science, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA 01002. manipulated by assigning the signal on the left to the left hand and the signal on the right to the right hand (high S-R compatibility), or the opposite (low S-R compatibility). In the first experiment, S-R compatibility and the length of the to-be-performed sequence had additive effects on the choice RT for the fi...

Negative Priming in a Joint Selection Task

“…This pattern of effects suggest that the facilitation effect is due to a motor facilitation rather than a perceptual priming because if perceptual priming associated with color repetition was responsible for the facilitation, then a facilitation should have been observed in all task conditions. This conclusion is also based on previous work showing similar facilitation effects associated with repeated response execution [20] – [21] .…”

Cross-modal compatibility effects with visual-spatial and auditory-verbal stimulus and response sets

“…The similarity of the results obtained by Inhoff et al (1984) with keypress response sequences and by Rosenbaum et al (1987) with vocal response sequences suggests that response selection is performed similarly for the two response sets. Also, the finding that a compatibility effect occurs for the assignment of a nonspeech auditory stimulus (tone pitch) to a speech response is consistent with the implication of our experiments that S-R compatibility effects obtained with speech stimuli andlor responses are not restricted to processes operating within a speech module.…”

“…Subsequent experiments that used heterogeneous sequences (response sequences beginning with one hand and ending with the other) showed a reduced compatibility effect relative to homogeneous sequences (response sequences performed with one hand), indicating that whereas the direction of the compatibility effect is determined by the initial keypress in a sequence, RT is also influenced by the relation between the signal to respond and noninitial keypresses. Rosenbaum et al (1987) performed the complement to this work by conducting similar experiments with vocal response sequences composed from the sets {Igil, Ibil, Idi/} and {/gu/, Ibul, /du/}, and either a high-or lowpitched tone signal to respond. The higher pitched Iii sound is compatible with the high-pitched tone signal and the lower pitched lui sound is compatible with the lowpitched tone signal.…”

Sequential activation processes in producing words and syllables: Evidence from picture naming

“…This tree traversal pattern was proposed originally as a way to solve the problem of serial order in higher order planning and memory retrieval processes (Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960;Simon, 1972;Greeno & Simon, 1974;Restle, 1970;Volpert, 1982;Yngve, 1960), and subsequently has been postulated for the perception of structured patterns (Povel, 1981) and the planning and production of sequences of limb movements and key presses (see Collard & Povel, 1982;Gordon & Meyer, 1987;Jordan & Rosenbaum, 1989;Pew & Rosenbaum, 1988;Rosenbaum, 1990Rosenbaum, , 1991Rosenbaum, Gordon, Stillings, & Feinstein, 1987;Rosenbaum, Inhoff, & Gordon, 1984;Rosenbaum, Kenny, & Derr, 1983;Rosenbaum, Weber, Hazelett, & Hindorff, 1986). Even for phonological retrieval, the top-down, left-to-right tree traversal idea is not new (Gordon & Meyer, 1987;MacKay, 1970MacKay, , 1972MacKay, , 1974Rosenbaum, 1985;Rosenbaum et al, 1986Rosenbaum et al, , 1987 inhibitory connection between ONSET FINAL and ONSET. This terminal inhibition will release the lateral inhibition on RHYME, and enable RHYME to become activated as the most primed sequence node, causing activation of uk(rhyme).…”