Investigating the modality specificity of response selection using a temporal flanker task

Psychological Research

Volumn 75, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 499-512

  Schumacher, Eric H ^a   Schwarb, Hillary ^a   Lightman, Erin ^a   Hazeltine, Eliot ^b  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b E11 SSH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BRAIN; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING; HUMAN; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ATTENTION; BRAIN; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL NEUROIMAGING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80355132060     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0369-9     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Anderson, J. R., Taatgen, N. A., & Byrne, M. D. (2005). Learning to achieve perfect, timesharing: Architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, and Ivry (2002). Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 749-761.
2. Botvinick, M., Nytrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179-181.
3. Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108(4), 847-869.
4. Cohen, A., & Feintuch, U. (2002). The dimensional-action system: a distinct visual system. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action (Vol. 19, pp. 587-608). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. 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 and Performance, 11(5), 529-533.
6. Dronkers, N. F. (1996). A new brain region for coordinating speech articulation. Nature, 384(6605), 159-161.
7. Dux, P. E., Ivanoff, J., Asplund, C. L., & Marois, R. (2006). Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved fMRI. Neuron, 52(6), 1109-1120.
8. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374-380.
9. 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.
10. Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information-processing in visual-search-continuous-flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics, 25(4), 249-263.
11. Hazeltine, E., Bunge, S. A., Scanlon, M. D., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2003). Material-dependent and material-independent selection processes in the frontal and parietal lobes: an event-related fMRI investigation of response competition. Neuropsychologia, 41(9), 1208-1217.
12. Hazeltine, E., Lightman, E., Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2011). The boundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance. doi: 10. 1037/a0024662 (in press).
13. Hazeltine, E., & Ruthruff, E. (2006). Modality pairing effects and the response selection bottleneck. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 70(6), 504-513.
14. Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52(4), 291-345.
15. Hazeltine, E., Teague, D., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 28(3), 527-545.
16. Hazeltine, E., Weinstein, A., & Ivry, R. B. (2008). Parallel response selection after callosotomy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 526-540.
17. Henson, R. N. (2007). Efficient Experimental Design for fMRI. In J. T. Ashburner, S. J. Kiebel, T. E. Nichols, & W. D. Penny (Eds.), Statistical parametric mapping: The analysis of functional brain images (pp. 193-210). London: Academic Press.
18. Israel, M., & Cohen, A. (2011). Involuntary strategy-dependent dual task performance. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung. doi: 10. 1007/s00426-011-0359-y (in issue).
19. Ivanoff, J., Branning, P., & Marois, R. (2009). Mapping the pathways of information processing from sensation to action in four distinct sensorimotor tasks. Human Brain Mapping, 30(12), 4167-4186.
20. Jiang, Y., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). Common neural substrates for response selection across modalities and mapping paradigms. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(8), 1080-1094.
21. Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 74(3), 255-267.
22. MacDonald, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288, 1835-1838.
23. Magen, H., & Cohen, A. (2010). Modularity beyond perception: Evidence from the PRP paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 395-414.
24. McCann, R. S., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Locus of the single-channel bottleneck in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(2), 471-484.
25. Merriam, E. P., Colby, C. L., Thulborn, K. R., Luna, B., Olson, C. R., & Sweeney, J. A. (2001). Stimulus-response incompatibility activates cortex proximate to three eye fields. Neuroimage, 13(5), 794-800.
26. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance. 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104(1), 3-65.
27. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance. 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104(4), 749-791.
28. Meyer, D. E., Kieras, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Schumacher, E. H., Glass, J. M., Zurbriggen, E., et al. (1995). Adaptive executive control: Flexible multiple-task performance without pervasive immutable response-selection bottlenecks. Acta Psychologica, 90, 163-190.
29. Morimoto, H. M., Hirose, S., Chikazoe, J., Jimura, K., Asari, T., Yamashita, K., et al. (2008). On verbal/nonverbal modality dependence of left and right inferior prefrontal activation during performance of flanker interference task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(11), 2006-2014.
30. Nagel, I. E., Schumacher, E. H., Goebel, R., & D'Esposito, M. (2008). Functional MRI investigation of verbal selection mechanisms in lateral prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage, 43(4), 801-807.
31. Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(4), 826-842.
32. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks-data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220-244.
33. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155-189). Hove: Psychological Press.
34. Ruthruff, E., Hazeltine, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006a). What causes residual dual-task interference after practice? Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 70(6), 494-503.
35. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., & van Selst, M. (2001a). Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 3-21.
36. Ruthruff, E., Johnston, J. C., van Selst, M., Whitsell, S., & Remington, R. (2003). Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: Has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent? Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 280-289.
37. Ruthruff, E., Pashler, H. E., & Klaassen, A. (2001b). Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: structural limitation or strategic postponement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(1), 73-80.
38. Ruthruff, E., van Selst, M., Johnston, J. C., & Remington, R. (2006b). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening? Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 70(2), 125-142.
39. Schubert, T., & Szameitat, A. J. (2003). Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: an fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3), 733-746.
40. Schumacher, E. H., Cole, M. W., & D'Esposito, M. (2007). Selection and maintenance of stimulus-response rules during preparation and performance of a spatial choice-reaction task. Brain Research, 1136(1), 77-87.
41. Schumacher, E. H., & D'Esposito, M. (2002). Neural implementation of response selection in humans as revealed by localized effects of stimulus-response compatibility on brain activation. Human Brain Mapping, 17(3), 193-201.
42. Schumacher, E. H., Elston, P. A., & D'Esposito, M. (2003). Neural evidence for representation-specific response selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(8), 1111-1121.
43. Schumacher, E. H., Hendricks, M. J., & D'Esposito, M. (2005). Sustained involvement of a frontal-parietal network for spatial response selection with practice of a spatial choice-reaction task. Neuropsychologia, 43(10), 1444-1455.
44. Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Glass, J. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Gmeindl, L., Kieras, D. E., et al. (1999). Concurrent response-selection processing in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 791-814.
45. Schumacher, E. H., & Schwarb, H. (2009). Parallel response selection disrupts sequence learning under dual-task conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 138(2), 270-290.
46. Schumacher, E. H., Seymour, T. L., Glass, J. M., Fencsik, D. E., Lauber, E. J., Kieras, D. E., et al. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12(2), 101-108.
47. Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2009). Neural evidence of a role for spatial response selection in the learning of spatial sequences. Brain Research, 1247, 114-125.
48. Stelzel, C., Schumacher, E. H., Schubert, T., & D'Esposito, M. (2006). The neural effect of stimulus-response modality compatibility on dual-task performance: an fMRI study. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 70(6), 514-525.
49. Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central cross-talk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 36(4), 1075-1081.
50. Szameitat, A. J., Schubert, T., Muller, K., & Von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Localization of executive functions in dual-task performance with fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(8), 1184-1199.
51. Wickens, C. D., & Liu, Y. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30(5), 599-616.
52. Wickens, C. D., Mountford, S. J., & Schreiner, W. (1981). Multiple resources, task-hemispheric integrity, and individual differences in time-sharing. Human Factors, 23(2), 211-229.
53. Worsley, K. J., & Friston, K. J. (1995). Analysis of fMRI time-series revisited-again. Neuroimage, 2(3), 173-181.
54. Yeung, N., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection: Conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 931-959.