Information processing
Andrea Utley in Motor Control, Learning and Development, 2018
This demonstrated a simple conclusion – more stages should require more time. In light of our information-processing model presented above (Figure 5.3), a simple RT task, which involves the subject pressing a button when a stimulus is presented, involves two of the information-processing stages: stimulus detection and response programming. The go/no go task, in which the subject has to respond selectively to stimuli, adds stimulus identification to stimulus detection and response programming. Finally, in a choice reaction time task, the subject has to identify the stimulus from many choices and then respond accordingly, thus adding a response-selection stage (Table 5.1). However, as Friston et al. (1996) noted, the biggest disadvantage of this interpretation of the reaction time data is that simple, choice and recognition reaction times differ from each other by only an additional stage of processing, and that the introduction of that stage does not alter the others (Figure 5.4).
Time passing
Patrick Rabbitt in The Aging Mind, 2019
The arithmetic seems plausible. Over the last 50 years, my reaction times on a particular two-choice reaction-time task have slowed from 220 to 250 milliseconds, just a little less than the average of 1 millisecond a year. This might slow my subjective time by 15 per cent. This agrees with my subjective feeling about how far I am now slipping behind the world, but I do not think that it explains my existential predicament.
Functional Neurology
James Crossley in Functional Exercise and Rehabilitation, 2021
Perception time is the time taken for a stimulus to trigger attention and for our brain to identify the significance of that stimulus. Perception times can vary from one quarter to three quarters of a second, and can be reduced with task-specific training. Choice reaction time is the time taken between recognizing a stimulus and choosing an appropriate response.
Cognitive and skill performance of individuals at sitting versus standing workstations: a quasi-experimental study
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2022
Matin Rostami, Mohsen Razeghi, Hadi Daneshmandi, Jafar Hassanzadeh, Alireza Choobineh
Reaction time calculated via the elementary cognitive task (ECT) has been one of the most comprehensive studies in psychology [43]. ECTs are performed for the assessment of simple cognitive tasks. Performing these primary tasks requires little attention. ECTs are basically related to the speed of information processing [44]. In general, ECTs require people to evaluate and react to simple visual stimuli [45]. The ‘advanced reaction time’ software measures two main types of reaction time (i.e., simple and choice) with an accuracy of 1 ms [43]. Simple reaction time is usually defined as the time required for the subject to detect the presence of a stimulus [46]. For choice reaction, on the other hand, the participant is required to give different answers to two different stimuli. Reaction time is more affected by inheritance (especially simple reaction time), but internal factors (such as intelligence) and environmental factors (such as number of stimuli, fatigue) can have a significant effect on reaction time (especially choice reaction time) [47]. Therefore, in this study, the ‘advanced reaction time’ test was used to measure choice reaction time.
Top-down Inhibitory Motor Control Is Preserved in Adults with Developmental Coordination Disorder
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2021
William Mayes, Judith Gentle, Irene Parisi, Laura Dixon, José van Velzen, Ines Violante
Action initiation in response to a presented stimulus is commonly measured using Choice reaction time tasks (Miller & Low, 2001) to provide a measurement of reaction time and accuracy, and as an index of bottom-up information processing. When considering how inhibitory control regulates action initiation, a distinction should be made between action restraint and action cancellation processes. Action restraint refers to the inhibition of automatic responses that have not yet been initiated, whilst action cancellation refers to the rapid termination of movement after initiation (Dambacher et al., 2014). Importantly, action cancellation as a function of top-down inhibitory control, requires additional executive resources (Aron, 2011; Schachar et al., 2007; Verbruggen & Logan, 2008a). Distinguishing these in DCD is important, as it can provide additional information regarding the source of inhibitory deficits. A common task to evaluate action restraint is the “Go/No-Go” task, in which participants are required to respond to frequent “Go” trials, and to suppress responses during infrequent “No-Go” trials (Gomez, Ratcliff, & Perea, 2007). Several studies have investigated action restraint processes in DCD using this paradigm (Cousins & Smyth, 2003; Querne et al., 2008; Thornton et al., 2018) and found increased total error rates relative to control participants. There is far less evidence for the presence of an action cancellation deficit in DCD.
Comparison of Intentional Inhibition and Reactive Inhibition in Adolescents and Adults: An ERP Study
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2020
Yue Shen, Hui Zhao, Jiayin Zhu, Yi He, Xue Zhang, Songhan Liu, Jinghan Chen
Secondly, the adolescent group results showed that the mean amplitude and peak latency for reactive Nogo-N2 was significantly greater than for the intentional Nogo-N2. Nogo-N2 does not have the same effect in the adult group, which is consistent with previous studies (Parkinson & Haggard, 2015; Xu et al., 2019). Analysis of the adolescent group yielded similar behavioral results in which free-choice reaction time was longer than externally triggered reaction time. However, unlike the adult group, the average amplitude for reactive Nogo-N2 was significantly greater than for intentional Nogo-N2. Nogo-N2 amplitude is related to the level and difficulty of inhibition (Nieuwenhuis et al., 2004; Salil & Pierre, 2005). Moreover, the latency of N2 is associated with the level of inhibition. Research has shown that successful inhibition requires an earlier N2 component activation (Falkenstein et al., 1999). Therefore, our results may indicate that it is more difficult for adolescents to inhibit their actions based on external instructions than based on autonomously generated signals. These increases have been interpreted as reflecting an internal response-conflict between prepotent Go responses and the withholding of the response. Compared to the adult group, there were significant differences between intentional and reactive inhibition in the adolescent group. The average amplitude and latency of reactive Nogo-N2 in the adolescent group were significantly greater than for adults. Adolescents may use more resources in reactive inhibition.
Related Knowledge Centers
- Attention
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Cognitive Psychology
- Neocortex
- Elementary Cognitive Task
- Experimental Psychology
- Physiological Psychology
- Behavioral Neuroscience
- Information Processing
- White Matter