Locus of response slowing resulting from alternation-based processing interference.

In serial reaction time (RT) tasks, performance is strongly influenced by previous events. RT in Trial N is much slower after response changes than response repetitions from Trial N-2 to Trial N-1 when response-stimulus interval is short (I. Jentzsch & H. Leuthold, 2005). The aim of the present study was to investigate the mechanisms leading to this slowing by contrasting the idea of a hard bottleneck, postponing all subsequent processing, with a selective prolonging of postperceptual stages. We analyzed the lateralized readiness potential (LRP) and peak latencies of P1, N1, and P300 components in a choice RT task mapping four stimuli to two responses. Alternation-based interference affected the S-LRP interval but neither the LRP-R interval nor the latency of P1, N1, and P300. These findings suggest that, whereas alternation-based conflict originates at response-related stages, postconflict slowing selectively affects central, premotoric processing.

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

[2]  E. Donchin,et al.  Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[3]  P. Bertelson,et al.  Serial Choice Reaction-time as a Function of Response versus Signal-and-Response Repetition , 1965, Nature.

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

[5]  C M Moore,et al.  Bisecting RT with lateralized readiness potentials: precue effects of LRP onset. , 1995, Acta psychologica.

[6]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Measurement of ERP latency differences: a comparison of single-participant and jackknife-based scoring methods. , 2008, Psychophysiology.

[7]  W. Chase,et al.  Sequential effects in choice reaction time. , 1969 .

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

[9]  D. Laming.  Choice reaction performance following an error , 1979 .

[10]  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.

[11]  G. McCarthy,et al.  Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. , 1977, Science.

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

[13]  L. Mulder,et al.  Use of partial stimulus information in response processing. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  M. Coles.  Modern mind-brain reading: psychophysiology, physiology, and cognition. , 1989, Psychophysiology.

[15]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Decomposing sources of response slowing in the PRP paradigm. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[17]  A. Sanders.  Issues and trends in the debate on discrete vs. continuous processing of information , 1990 .

[18]  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.

[19]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Adjustments in Control , 2004, Science.

[20]  P. Jaśkowski,et al.  VEP latency and some properties of simple motor reaction-time distribution , 1990, Psychological research.

[21]  H G Vaughan,et al.  The functional relation of visual evoked response and reaction time to stimulus intensity. , 1966, Vision research.

[22]  Rolf Ulrich,et al.  Locus of the effect of temporal preparation: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. , 2003, Psychophysiology.

[23]  A. Osman,et al.  The locus of dual-task interference: psychological refractory effects on movement-related brain potentials. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Jackknife-based method for measuring LRP onset latency differences. , 1998, Psychophysiology.

[25]  E. Donchin,et al.  Detecting early communication: Using measures of movement-related potentials to illuminate human information processing , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[26]  Carolin Dudschig,et al.  Short Article: Why do we slow down after an error? Mechanisms underlying the effects of posterror slowing , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[27]  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.

[28]  E. Soetens,et al.  Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Bryan Rodgers,et al.  What does a Man do after he Makes an Error? An Analysis of Response Programming , 1977 .

[30]  Chris Oriet,et al.  Absence of perceptual processing during reconfiguration of task set. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[32]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Using the jackknife-based scoring method for measuring LRP onset effects in factorial designs. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

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