Unequal motor durations under simple-, go/no-go, and choice-RT tasks: extension of Miller and Low (2001).

The logic of the Subtraction Method is used implicitly or explicitly in a variety of work, ranging from traditional response-time research to functional neuroimaging. One assumption of all forms of the Subtraction Method is that components may be inserted (or deleted) without causing changes in the remaining components. We tested this assumption as it applies to the duration of late motor processing using the lag between the onset of lateralized readiness potential (LRP) and the production of the required response as the measure of late motor processing. In contrast to a similar, previous study that used this approach (Miller & Low, 2001), we found differences in the LRP lags across the types of task that are used in the Subtraction Method. The LRP lag for simple-RT was shorter than the lags for either go/no-go or choice-RT. This finding constitutes evidence against an assumption required by the Subtraction Method, at least as applied to component durations, but can be explained in terms of a supplementary (non-subtractive) inhibitory component that is only employed in the go/no-go task.

[1]  R I Grossman,et al.  Brain imaging , 1999, Current Biology.

[2]  W. Sommer,et al.  Partial advance information and response preparation: inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[3]  J. Miller,et al.  Motor processes in simple, go/no-go, and choice reaction time tasks: a psychophysiological analysis. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Michael S. Gazzaniga,et al.  Conversations in the Cognitive Neurosciences , 1996 .

[5]  M. Grosjean,et al.  The lateralized readiness potential and response kinetics in response-time tasks. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[6]  F. Donders,et al.  Over de snelheid van psychische Processen , 1868 .

[7]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Donders's assumption of pure insertion: an evaluation on the basis of response dynamics , 1999 .

[8]  J T Mordkoff,et al.  Detecting the onset of the lateralized readiness potential: a comparison of available methods and procedures. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[9]  Saul Sternberg,et al.  The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method , 1969 .

[10]  Richard A. Magill,et al.  Memory and control of action , 1983 .

[11]  D. Rosenbaum.  The Movement Precuing Technique: Assumptions, Applications, and Extensions , 1983 .

[12]  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.

[13]  J. Brožek.  Attention and Performance II. , 1971 .

[14]  Darryl W. Schneider,et al.  Automatic and Controlled Response Inhibition: Associative Learning in the Go/no-go and Stop-signal Paradigms the Go/no-go Paradigm and the Stop-signal Paradigm , 2022 .

[15]  Saul Sternberg,et al.  Methods, models, and conceptual issues , 1998 .

[16]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[17]  J Miller,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for temporal overlap among contingent mental processes. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  J Miller,et al.  Absence of coactivation in the motor component: evidence from psychophysiological measures of target detection. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.