Reaction Time Analysis of Two Types of Motor Preparation for Speech Articulation: Action as a Sequence of Chunks

Abstract Reaction time (RT) prior to speech articulation increased as a function of response complexity. The RT findings formed 2 patterns, each of which was a different Response Complexity × Paradigm (choice RT vs. simple RT) interaction. That result extends previous findings from manual button-pressing tasks (S. T. Klapp, 1995) to a different action modality. Two different types of response programming, INT and SEQ, are assumed in the interpretation. Whereas INT can be identified with response programming within a word, SEQ fits a different interpretation related to timing of onsets of speech units. A critical assumption is that a long response is represented as a sequence of chunks; that organization is subject to manipulation. New findings suggest some modifications of the previous theory.

[1]  Herbert Heuer,et al.  Binary choice reaction time as a criterion of motor equivalence , 1982 .

[2]  W. Prinz.  Perception and Action Planning , 1997 .

[3]  F T Smulders,et al.  The temporal selectivity of additive factor effects on the reaction process revealed in ERP component latencies. , 1995, Acta psychologica.

[4]  W B Verwey,et al.  Concatenating familiar movement sequences: the versatile cognitive processor. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

[5]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Determinants of Negative Priming , 1995 .

[6]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Locus of the effect of the number of alternative responses : Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential , 1998 .

[7]  D A Rosenbaum,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility in the programming of speech , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[8]  Steven W. Keele,et al.  Movement control in skilled motor performance. , 1968 .

[9]  Gerard P. van Galen,et al.  Programming in handwriting: Reaction time and movement time as a function of sequence length , 1983 .

[10]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  A. Gordon,et al.  Choosing between movement sequences: A hierarchical editor model. , 1984 .

[12]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Implicit speech: Mechanism in perceptual encoding? , 1970 .

[13]  R J Jagacinski,et al.  Tests of parallel versus integrated structure in polyrhythmic tapping. , 1988, Journal of motor behavior.

[14]  W. B. Verwey,et al.  A Forthcoming Key Press Can Be Selected While Earlier Ones Are Executed. , 1993, Journal of motor behavior.

[15]  Daniel Russell,et al.  Distributed Control in Rapid Sequential Aiming Responses. , 1999, Journal of motor behavior.

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

[17]  R. Hyman.  Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  G W Humphreys,et al.  The syllable’s role in word naming , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[19]  R. Daniloff,et al.  Coarticulation of lip rounding. , 1968, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Motor programming within a sequence of responses. , 1976, Journal of motor behavior.

[21]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Implicit speech in reading: Reconsidered , 1973 .

[22]  S E Petersen,et al.  Changes in motor planning during the acquisition of movement patterns in a continuous task. , 1993, Acta psychologica.

[23]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  The Latency and Duration of Rapid Movement Sequences: Comparisons of Speech and Typewriting , 1978 .

[24]  David E. Meyer,et al.  Speed—Accuracy Tradeoffs in Aimed Movements: Toward a Theory of Rapid Voluntary Action , 2018, Attention and Performance XIII.

[25]  S T Klapp,et al.  Response programming, as assessed by reaction time, does not establish commands for particular muscles. , 1977, Journal of motor behavior.

[26]  J. Müsseler,et al.  Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  C Palmer,et al.  Range of planning in music performance. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[29]  W. E. Hick.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[30]  D. Rosenbaum.  Human movement initiation: specification of arm, direction, and extent. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  S. Klapp,et al.  The negative compatibility effect: Unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection , 2002 .

[32]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: The role of practice. , 1995 .

[33]  H N Zelaznik,et al.  The specification of digit and duration during motor programming: a new method of precueing. , 1982, Journal of motor behavior.

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

[35]  R J Jagacinski,et al.  On marching to two different drummers: perceptual aspects of the difficulties. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[36]  Richard J. Jagacinski,et al.  On marching to two different drummers: perceptual aspects of the difficulties. , 1985 .

[37]  Daniel W. Repperger,et al.  Fitts' law and the microstructure of rapid discrete movements. , 1980 .

[38]  C J Worringham,et al.  Distribution of Programming in a Rapid Aimed Sequential Movement , 1996, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[39]  R. Pew.  Acquisition of hierarchical control over the temporal organization of a skill. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[40]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[41]  Willem B. Verwey,et al.  Evidence for a multistage model of practice in a sequential movement task. , 1999 .

[42]  F. Donders.  On the speed of mental processes. , 1969, Acta psychologica.

[43]  D. Wright,et al.  Motor programming during practice conditions high and low in contextual interference. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  A Semjen,et al.  Distributed planning of movement sequences. , 1988, Journal of motor behavior.

[45]  Ludovic Ferrand,et al.  Reading aloud polysyllabic words and nonwords: The syllabic length effect reexamined , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[46]  R J Jagacinski,et al.  Can people tap concurrent bimanual rhythms independently? , 1998, Journal of motor behavior.

[47]  S P Tipper,et al.  Negative priming between response modalities: Evidence for the central locus of inhibition in selective attention , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  Ian M. Franks,et al.  On-line programming of simple movement sequences , 1997 .

[49]  F. M. Henry,et al.  Increased Response Latency for Complicated Movements and A “Memory Drum” Theory of Neuromotor Reaction , 1960 .

[50]  D. Mackay.  The Organization of Perception and Action , 1987 .

[51]  R Kliegl,et al.  The fast and the slow of skilled bimanual rhythm production: parallel versus integrated timing. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[53]  R. Ulrich,et al.  Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[54]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  The negative compatibility effect: unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[55]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  The relation of perception and motor action: ideomotor compatibility and interference in divided attention. , 1991, Journal of motor behavior.

[56]  M. Eimer,et al.  Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[57]  B. Hommel,et al.  Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[58]  K. Lashley.  The problem of serial order in behavior , 1951 .

[59]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Naming multisyllabic words. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[60]  Caroline Palmer,et al.  Range of planning in skilled music performance , 1992 .

[61]  José E. García-Albea,et al.  Movement errors and levels of processing in sentence production , 1989 .

[62]  Ian M. Franks,et al.  Dual-task interference as an indicator of on-line programming in simple movement sequences , 1999 .

[63]  Stuart T. Klapp,et al.  Syllable-dependent pronunciation latencies in number naming: A replication. , 1974 .