Sequential Effects in Two-Choice Reaction Time Tasks: Decomposition and Synthesis of Mechanisms

Neural Computation

Volumn 21, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 2407-2436

  Gao, Juan ^a   Wong Lin, Kong Fatt ^a   Holmes, Philip ^a   Simen, Patrick ^b   Cohen, Jonathan D ^b  

^a Princeton University   (United States)

^b PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONNECTIONIST NETWORKS; COST/BENEFIT; DECISION UNIT; FIRST ORDER; HIGH-ORDER; HIGHER-ORDER; PERFORMANCE; REACTION-TIME TASK; SEQUENTIAL EFFECTS; TASK DECOMPOSITION;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; AUTOMATISM; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LEARNING; MATHEMATICS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME; SHORT TERM MEMORY; TIME;

AUTOMATISM; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MATHEMATICS; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; SERIAL LEARNING; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 70349243740     PISSN: 08997667     EISSN: 1530888X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/neco.2009.09-08-866     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Audley, R. (1973). Some observations on theories of choice reaction time: Tutorial review. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV. New York: Academic Press.
2. Berlyne, D. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 90–102.
4. Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two alternative forced choice tasks. Psychological Review, 113(4), 700–765.
5. Botvinick, M., Braver, T., Barch, D., Carter, C., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.
6. Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L., Fissell, K., Carter, C., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179–181.
7. Brown, E., Gao, J., Holmes, P., Bogacz, R., Gilzenrat, M., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). Simple neural networks that optimize decisions. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 15, 803–826.
8. Brown, E., & Holmes, P. (2001). Modeling a simple choice task: Stochastic dynamics of mutually inhibitory neural groups. Stochastics and Dynamics, 1(2), 159–191.
9. Burle, B., Allain, S., Vidal, F., & Hasbroucq, T. (2005). Sequential compatibility effects and cognitive control: Does conflict really matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 831–837.
10. Burle, B., Roger, C., Allain, S., Vidal, F., & Hasbroucq, T. (2008). Error negativity does not reflect conflict: A reappraisal of conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1637–1655.
11. Carter, C., Braver, T., Barch, D., Botvinick, M., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (1998). Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection and the on-line monitoring of performance. Science, 280, 747–749.
12. Cho, R., Nystrom, L., Brown, E., Jones, A., Braver, T., Holmes, P., et al. (2002). Mechanisms underlying dependencies of performance on stimulus history in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 283–299.
13. Dorris, M., Pare, M., & Munoz, D. (2000). Immediate neural plasticity shapes motor performance. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, RC52(1–5).
14. Fecteau, J., Au, C., Armstrong, I., & Munoz, D. (2004). Sensory biases produce the alternation advantage found in sequential saccadic eye movement tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 159, 84–91.
15. Fecteau, J., & Munoz, D. (2003). Exploring the consequences of the previous trial. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 4, 435–443.
16. Grossberg, S. (1988). Nonlinear neural networks: Principles, mechanisms, and architectures. Neural Networks, 1, 17–61.
17. Higham, D. (2001). An algorithmic introduction to numerical simulation of stochastic differential equations. SIAM Rev., 43, 525–546.
18. Huettel, S., Mack, P., & McCarthy, G. (2002). Perceiving patterns in random series: Dynamic processing of sequence in prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 485–490.
19. Huettel, S., Song, A., & McCarthy, G. (2005). Decisions under uncertainty: Probabilistic context influences activation of prefrontal and parietal cortices. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 3304–3311.
20. Jarvik, M. (1951). Probability learning and a negative recency effect in the serial anticipation of alternative symbols. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 243–248.
21. Jentzsch, I., & Leuthold, H. (2005). Response conflict determines sequential effects in serial response time tasks with short response-stimulus intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychol.: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 731–748.
22. Jentzsch, I., & Sommer, W. (2001). Sequence-sensitive subcomponents of P300: Topographical analyses and dipole source localization. Psychophysiology, 38, 607–621.
23. Jentzsch, I., & Sommer, W. (2002). Functional localization and mechanisms of sequential effects in serial reaction time tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 1169–1188.
24. Johnston, K., & Everling, S. (2006). Monkey dorsolateral prefrontal cortex sends task-selective signals directly to the superior colliculus. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 12471–12478.
25. Johnston, K., Levin, H., Koval, M., & Everling, S. (2007). Top-down control-signal dynamics in anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex neurons following task switching. Neuron, 53, 453–462.
26. Jones, A., Cho, R., Nystrom, L., Cohen, J. D., & Braver, T. (2002). A computational model of anterior cingulate function in speeded response tasks: Effects of frequency, sequence, and conflict. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 300–317.
27. Kirby, N. (1972). Sequential effects in serial reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 32–36.
28. Kirby, N. (1976). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: Automatic facilitation or subjective expectancy? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 567–577.
29. Klein, R. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138–147.
30. Laming, D. (1968). Information theory of choice reaction times. London: Academic Press.
31. Lo, C., & Wang, X.-J. (2006). Cortico-basal ganglia circuit mechanism for a decision threshold in reaction time tasks. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 956–963.
32. Lupianez, J., Klein, R., & Bartolomeo, P. (2006). Inhibition of return: Twenty years after. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23, 1003–1014.
33. Machens, C., Romo, R., & Brody, C. (2005). Flexible control of mutual inhibition: A neural model of two-interval discrimination. Science, 307, 1121–1124.
34. Melis, A., Soetens, E., & van der Molen, M. (2001). Process-specific slowing with advancing age: Evidence derived from the analysis of sequential effects. Brain and Cognition, 49, 420–435.
35. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
36. Roitman, J., & Shadlen, M. (2002). Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 9475–9489.
37. Seung, H. (1996). How the brain keeps the eyes still. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 93, 13339–13344.
38. Shadlen, M., & Newsome, W. (2001). Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area “LIP”) of the rhesus monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86, 1916–1936.
39. Simen, P., Cohen, J. D., & Holmes, P. (2006). Rapid decision threshold modulation by reward rate in a neural network. Neural Networks, 19, 1013–1026.
40. Soetens, E., Boer, L., & Hueting, J. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 598–616.
41. Soetens, E., Deboeck, M., & Hueting, J. (1984). Automatic aftereffects in two-choice reaction time: A mathematical representation of some concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 581–598.
42. Soetens, E., & Notebaert, W. (2005). Response monitoring and expectancy in random serial RT tasks. Acta Psychologica, 119, 189–216.
43. Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., & Soetens, E. (1999). Covert signs of expectancy in serial reaction time tasks revealed by event-related potentials. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 342–353.
44. Squires, K., Wickens, C., Squires, N., & Donchin, E. (1976). The effect of stimulus sequence on the waveform of the cortical event-related potential. Science, 193, 1142–1146.
45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
46. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550–592.
47. Vervaeck, K., & Boer, L. (1980). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: Subjective expectancy and automatic after-effects at short response-stimulus intervals. Acta Psychologica, 44, 175–190.
48. Vickers, D., & Lee, M. D. (1998). Dynamic models of simple judgments: I. Properties of a self-regulating accumulator module. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 2, 169–194.
49. Wang, X.-J. (1999). Synaptic basis of cortical persistent activity: The importance of NMDA receptors to working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 9587–9603.