An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus, but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1236-1247

  Mattson, Paul S ^a   Fournier, Lisa R ^a  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; NOISE; REACTION TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL STIMULATION;

AROUSAL; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; INTENTION; MENTAL RECALL; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 54949110908     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.7.1236     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. CAESSENS, B., & VANDIERENDONCK, A. (2002). Inhibition and blindness to response-compatible stimuli: A reappraisal. Acta Psychologica, 111, 45-57.
2. COLES, M. G. H., GRATTON, G., BASHORE, T. R., ERIKSEN, C. W., & DONCHIN, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 11, 529-553.
3. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
4. ERIKSEN, B. A., & ERIKSEN, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
5. ERIKSEN, C. W., & MURPHY, T. D. (1987). Movement of attentional focus across the visual field: A critical look at the evidence. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 299-305.
6. ERIKSEN, C. W., & SCHULTZ, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 249-263.
7. GALLESE, V., FADIGA, L., FOGASSI, L., & RIZZOLATTI, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593-609.
8. GRICE, G. R., BOUROUGHS, J. M., & CANHAM, L. (1984). Temporal dynamics of associative interference and facilitation produced by visual context. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 499-507.
9. HOMMEL, B., MÜSSELER, J., ASCHERSLEBEN, G., & PRINZ, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878.
10. JEANNEROD, M. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of action. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
11. KEELE, S. W., COHEN, A., & IVRY, R. (1990). Motor programs: Concepts and issues. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII: Motor representation and control (pp. 77-110). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. KORNBLUM, S., HASBROUCQ, T., & OSMAN, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
13. MÜSSELER, J., & HOMMEL, B. (1997a). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 861-872.
14. MÜSSELER, J., & HOMMEL, B. (1997b). Detecting and identifying response-compatible stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 125-129.
15. MÜSSELER, J., & WÜHR, P. (2002). Response-evoked interference in visual encoding. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 520-537). New York: Oxford University Press.
16. PRINZ, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O. Neumann & W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action (pp. 167-201). Berlin: Springer.
17. PRINZ, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
18. SAKATA, H., TAIRA, M., MURATA, A., & MINE, S. (1995). Neural mechanisms of visual guidance of hand actions in the parietal cortex of the monkey. Cerebral Cortex, 5, 429-438.
19. STOET, G., & HOMMEL, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1625-1640.
20. STOET, G., & HOMMEL, B. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 538-552). New York: Oxford University Press.
21. TAIRA, M., MINE, S., GEORGOPOULOS, A. P., MURATA, A., & SAKATA, H. (1990). Parietal cortex neurons of the monkey related to the visual guidance of hand movements. Experimental Brain Research, 83, 29-36.
22. TIPPER, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 321-343.
23. WIEDIGER, M., & FOURNIER, L. R. (in press). An action sequence withheld in memory can delay execution of visually guided actions: The generalization of response compatibility interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
24. WILD-WALL, N., FALKENSTEIN, M., & HOHNSBEIN, J. (2008). Flanker interference in young and older participants as reflected in event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1211, 72-84.
25. WÜHR, P., & MÜSSELER, J. (2001). Time course of the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 1260-1270.