Stopping and Restarting an Unfolding Action at Various Times

The ability to inhibit an unfolding action is usually investigated using a stop signal (or go—stop) task. The data from the stop-signal task are often described using a horse-race model whose key assumption is that each process (i.e., go, stop) exhibits stochastic independence. Using three variations of a coincident-timing task (i.e., go, go—stop, and go—stop—go) we extend previous considerations of stochastic independence by analysing the go latencies for prior effects of stopping. On random trials in the go—stop—go task the signal sweep was paused for various times at various distances before the target. Significant increases in latency errors were reported on those trials on which the signal was paused (p <.005). Further analyses of the pause trials revealed significant effects for both the stopping interval (p <.001) and the pause interval (p <.05). Tukey post hoc analyses demonstrated increased latency errors as a linear function of the stopping interval, as expected, and decreased latency errors as a nonlinear function of the pause interval. These latter results indicate that the latencies of the go process, as reflected in the latency errors, may not exhibit stochastic independence under certain conditions. Various control mechanisms were considered in an attempt to explain these data.

[1]  G. Logan,et al.  In search of the point of no return: the control of response processes. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[2]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Don’t look! don’t touch! inhibitory control of eye and hand movements , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Martina Rieger,et al.  Inhibitory after‐effects in the stop signal paradigm , 1999 .

[4]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Dependence and Independence in Responding to Double Stimulation : A Comparison of Stop , Change , and Dual-Task Paradigms , 1986 .

[5]  C Alain,et al.  Suppressing response initiation in a choice RT task. , 1982, Canadian journal of applied sport sciences. Journal canadien des sciences appliquees au sport.

[6]  J. Schall,et al.  Countermanding saccades in macaque , 1995, Visual Neuroscience.

[7]  I M Franks,et al.  Against a final ballistic process in the control of voluntary action: evidence using the Hoffmann reflex. , 2000, Motor control.

[8]  Hans Colonius,et al.  A Note on the Stop-Signal Paradigm, or How to Observe the Unobservable , 1990 .

[9]  I M Franks,et al.  A horse race between independent processes: evidence for a phantom point of no return in preparation of a speeded motor response. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  S Kornblum,et al.  Does motor programming necessitate response execution? , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  D. Meyer,et al.  The point of no return in choice reaction time: controlled and ballistic stages of response preparation. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  G. Logan,et al.  On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time responses: a model and a method. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  G D Logan,et al.  Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  A. T. Slater-Hammel,et al.  Reliability, Accuracy, and Refractoriness of a Transit Reaction , 1960 .

[15]  G. Logan On the ability to inhibit thought and action , 1984 .