Sequential Effects in Two-Choice Reaction Time Tasks: Decomposition and Synthesis of Mechanisms

Abstract Performance on serial tasks is influenced by first- and higher-order sequential effects, respectively, due to the immediately previous and earlier trials. As response-to-stimulus interval (RSI) increases, the pattern of reaction times transits from a benefit-only mode, traditionally ascribed to automatic facilitation (AF), to a cost-benefit mode, due to strategic expectancy (SE). To illuminate the sources of such effects, we develop a connectionist network of two mutually inhibiting neural decision units subject to feedback from previous trials. A study of separate biasing mechanisms shows that residual decision unit activity can lead to only first-order AF, but higher-order AF can result from strategic priming mediated by conflict monitoring, which we instantiate in two distinct versions. A further mechanism mediates expectation-related biases that grow during RSI toward saturation levels determined by weighted repetition (or alternation) sequence lengths. Equipped with these mechanisms, the network, consistent with known neurophysiology, accounts for several sets of behavioral data over a wide range of RSIs. The results also suggest that practice speeds up all the mechanisms rather than adjusting their relative strengths.

[1]  M. Jarvik,et al.  Probability learning and a negative recency effect in the serial anticipation of alternative symbols. , 1951, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  P. Bertelson.  Sequential Redundancy and Speed in a Serial Two-Choice Responding Task , 1961 .

[3]  Donald Laming,et al.  Information theory of choice-reaction times , 1968 .

[4]  S. Keele.  Repetition effect: A memory-dependent process. , 1969 .

[5]  N. Kirby,et al.  Sequential effects of serial reaction time. , 1972 .

[6]  D. Meyer,et al.  Attention and Performance XIV , 1973 .

[7]  Elizabeth C. Hirschman,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[8]  N. Squires,et al.  The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. , 1976, Science.

[9]  N. Kirby.  Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: automatic facilitation or subjective expectancy? , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  L. Boer,et al.  Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: Subjective expectancy and automatic after- effect at short response-stimulus intervals☆ , 1980 .

[11]  E. Soetens,et al.  Automatic aftereffects in two-choice reaction time: a mathematical representation of some concepts. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  E. Soetens,et al.  Expectancy or Automatic Facilitation? Separating Sequential Effects in Two-Choice Reaction Time , 1985 .

[13]  Stephen Grossberg,et al.  Nonlinear neural networks: Principles, mechanisms, and architectures , 1988, Neural Networks.

[14]  H S Seung,et al.  How the brain keeps the eyes still. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. , 1998, Science.

[16]  Douglas Vickers,et al.  Dynamic Models of Simple Judgments: I. Properties of a Self-Regulating Accumulator Module , 1998 .

[17]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex , 1999, Nature.

[18]  E. Soetens,et al.  Covert signs of expectancy in serial reaction time tasks revealed by event-related potentials , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  X. Wang,et al.  Synaptic Basis of Cortical Persistent Activity: the Importance of NMDA Receptors to Working Memory , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[20]  D. Munoz,et al.  t Immediate Neural Plasticity Shapes Motor Performance , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. , 2001, Psychological review.

[22]  Desmond J. Higham,et al.  An Algorithmic Introduction to Numerical Simulation of Stochastic Differential Equations , 2001, SIAM Rev..

[23]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[24]  W. Newsome,et al.  Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  P. Holmes,et al.  MODELING A SIMPLE CHOICE TASK: STOCHASTIC DYNAMICS OF MUTUALLY INHIBITORY NEURAL GROUPS , 2001 .

[26]  I. Jentzsch,et al.  Sequence-sensitive subcomponents of P300: topographical analyses and dipole source localization. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[27]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Mechanisms underlying dependencies of performance on stimulus history in a two-alternative forced-choice task , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[28]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Perceiving patterns in random series: dynamic processing of sequence in prefrontal cortex , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  E. Soetens,et al.  Process-Specific Slowing with Advancing Age: Evidence Derived from the Analysis of Sequential Effects , 2002, Brain and Cognition.

[30]  M. Shadlen,et al.  Response of Neurons in the Lateral Intraparietal Area during a Combined Visual Discrimination Reaction Time Task , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  A computational model of anterior cingulate function in speeded response tasks: Effects of frequency, sequence, and conflict , 2002, Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience.

[32]  I. Jentzsch,et al.  Functional localization and mechanisms of sequential effects in serial reaction time tasks , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[33]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Exploring the consequences of the previous trial , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[34]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Sensory biases produce alternation advantage found in sequential saccadic eye movement tasks , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  E. Soetens,et al.  Response monitoring and expectancy in random serial RT tasks. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[36]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Decisions under Uncertainty: Probabilistic Context Influences Activation of Prefrontal and Parietal Cortices , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[37]  B. Burle,et al.  Sequential compatibility effects and cognitive control: does conflict really matter? , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  Philip Holmes,et al.  Simple Neural Networks that Optimize Decisions , 2005, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos.

[39]  I. Jentzsch,et al.  Response conflict determines sequential effects in serial response time tasks with short response-stimulus intervals. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  Ranulfo Romo,et al.  Flexible Control of Mutual Inhibition: A Neural Model of Two-Interval Discrimination , 2005, Science.

[41]  R. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles: Data, Theory, and Application , 2006 .

[42]  Philip Holmes,et al.  Rapid decision threshold modulation by reward rate in a neural network , 2006, Neural Networks.

[43]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return: Twenty years after , 2006, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[44]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[45]  K. Johnston,et al.  Monkey Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Sends Task-Selective Signals Directly to the Superior Colliculus , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[46]  Xiao-Jing Wang,et al.  Cortico–basal ganglia circuit mechanism for a decision threshold in reaction time tasks , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[47]  K. Johnston,et al.  Top-Down Control-Signal Dynamics in Anterior Cingulate and Prefrontal Cortex Neurons following Task Switching , 2007, Neuron.

[48]  K. Johnston,et al.  Top-Down Control-Signal Dynamics in Anterior Cingulate and Prefrontal Cortex Neurons following Task Switching , 2007, Neuron.

[49]  Raymond Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[50]  Borís Burle,et al.  Error Negativity Does Not Reflect Conflict: A Reappraisal of Conflict Monitoring and Anterior Cingulate Cortex Activity , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[51]  P. Holmes,et al.  Closed-Form Approximations of First-Passage Distributions for a Stochastic Decision-Making Model. , 2010, Applied mathematics research express : AMRX.

[52]  Kristi A. Morgansen,et al.  Modeling and evaluation of decision-making dynamics in sequential two-alternative forced choice tasks , 2010, 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).