Measuring online volitional response control with a continuous tracking task

We present a new tracking task designed to measure elements of response control in particular types of response adjustments such as stopping. In this task, participants track a visual target by manually pressing on a force sensor to yield a trace of force over time. Hardware specifications are detailed, as is an algorithm for determining the latencies of response adjustments such as stopping. We illustrate the use of the task in two experiments. Experiment 1 explores the reliability of data produced by the task. Experiment 2 examines some of the issues that can be addressed using the new task. These results demonstrate the usefulness and potential of the task for gauging response control within the context of the stopping literature.

[1]  P. Ladefoged,et al.  Interruptibility of Speech , 1970 .

[2]  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.

[3]  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.

[4]  Maurits W. van der Molen,et al.  The duration of response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm varies with response force , 2003 .

[5]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective , 1990 .

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

[7]  Romeo Chua,et al.  Compatibility Effects in Stopping and Response Initiation in a Continuous Tracking Task , 2006, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  G. Logan.  On the ability to inhibit complex movements: A stop-signal study of typewriting. , 1982 .

[9]  Y. Rossetti,et al.  The timing of color and location processing in the motor context , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  J. Nigg,et al.  Is ADHD a disinhibitory disorder? , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Nachshon Meiran,et al.  Individual stopping times and cognitive control: converging evidence for the stop signal task from a continuous tracking paradigm. , 2003, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[13]  P Ladefoged,et al.  Letter: Interruptibility of speech. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  E. D. Megaw,et al.  Directional Errors and Their Correction in a Discrete Tracking Task , 1972 .

[15]  Gordon D Logan,et al.  Horse-race model simulations of the stop-signal procedure. , 2003, Acta psychologica.

[16]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: A comparison of stop, change, and dual-task paradigms. , 1986 .

[17]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Use of a delayed signal to stop a visual reaction-time response. , 1966 .

[18]  MARGARET A. VINCE,et al.  Time taken to change the Speed of a Response , 1967, Nature.

[19]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[20]  G D Logan,et al.  Response inhibition in AD/HD, CD, comorbid AD/HD + CD, anxious, and control children: a meta-analysis of studies with the stop task. , 1998, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[21]  T. Carr,et al.  Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language , 1994 .

[22]  W. Prinz,et al.  Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility , 1997 .

[23]  Romeo Chua,et al.  Inhibiting prepared and ongoing responses: Is there more than one kind of stopping? , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[24]  Franklin M. Henry,et al.  Refractoriness of a Fast Movement , 1961 .