Stopping eyes and hands:evidence for non-independence of stop and go processes and for a separation of central and peripheral inhibition
Standard
Stopping eyes and hands:evidence for non-independence of stop and go processes and for a separation of central and peripheral inhibition. / Gulberti, Alessandro; Arndt, Petra A; Colonius, Hans.
in: FRONT HUM NEUROSCI, Jahrgang 8, 2014, S. 61.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Stopping eyes and hands:evidence for non-independence of stop and go processes and for a separation of central and peripheral inhibition
AU - Gulberti, Alessandro
AU - Arndt, Petra A
AU - Colonius, Hans
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - In the stop-signal paradigm, participants perform a primary reaction task, for example a visual or auditory discrimination task, and have to react to a go stimulus as quickly as possible with a specified motor response. In a certain percentage of trials, after presentation of the stimulus (go signal), another stimulus (stop signal) is presented with a variable stop-signal delay. Whenever a stop signal occurs, the participant is asked to inhibit the execution of the response. Here, an extended test of the popular horse race model for this task (Logan and Cowan, 1984) is presented. Responses for eye and hand movements in both single-task and dual-task conditions were collected. Saccadic reaction times revealed some significant violations of the model's basic assumption of independent go and inhibition processes for all six participants. Saccades that escaped an early stop signal were systematically slower and had smaller amplitudes compared to saccades without a stop signal. Moreover, the analysis of concomitant electromyographic responses recorded from the upper arm suggests the existence of two separate inhibitory mechanisms: a slow, selective, central inhibitory mechanism and a faster, highly efficient, peripheral one, which is probably ineffective for saccades.
AB - In the stop-signal paradigm, participants perform a primary reaction task, for example a visual or auditory discrimination task, and have to react to a go stimulus as quickly as possible with a specified motor response. In a certain percentage of trials, after presentation of the stimulus (go signal), another stimulus (stop signal) is presented with a variable stop-signal delay. Whenever a stop signal occurs, the participant is asked to inhibit the execution of the response. Here, an extended test of the popular horse race model for this task (Logan and Cowan, 1984) is presented. Responses for eye and hand movements in both single-task and dual-task conditions were collected. Saccadic reaction times revealed some significant violations of the model's basic assumption of independent go and inhibition processes for all six participants. Saccades that escaped an early stop signal were systematically slower and had smaller amplitudes compared to saccades without a stop signal. Moreover, the analysis of concomitant electromyographic responses recorded from the upper arm suggests the existence of two separate inhibitory mechanisms: a slow, selective, central inhibitory mechanism and a faster, highly efficient, peripheral one, which is probably ineffective for saccades.
U2 - 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00061
DO - 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00061
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 24600371
VL - 8
SP - 61
JO - FRONT HUM NEUROSCI
JF - FRONT HUM NEUROSCI
SN - 1662-5161
ER -
