Abstract
IntroductionThis study aims to investigate whether processing a prepared response toward a dangerous object in a previous trial influences subsequent trial processing.MethodsThe design manipulated the Go/NoGo factor of the current trial, the target dangerousness of the previous trial and that of the current trial.ResultsIn current Go trials, the behavioral results revealed a classical motor interference effect in trials that were preceded by a safe trial (a longer reaction time (RT) and a larger error rate for the previous safe and current dangerous (sD) condition than for the previous safe and current safe (sS) condition). However, the motor interference effect diminished in trials that were preceded by a dangerous trial (insignificant differences in the mean RTs and error rates between the previous dangerous and current dangerous (dD) condition and the previous dangerous and current safe (dS) condition). The event‐related potential (ERP) results identified more positive P2 and parietal P3 amplitudes (indicating attentional resource allocation) for the dD condition than for the dS condition. However, the P2 and parietal P3 amplitudes of the sD condition did not significantly differ from those of the sS condition.DiscussionsThese results support the hypothesis that the avoidance motivation elicited by a dangerous target in a previous trial may indicate a dangerous situation, which leads to recruitment of more attentional resources allocated to the subsequent dangerous trial. Therefore, RTs are improved and errors are reduced in the consecutive dangerous condition, subsequently decreasing the motor interference effect in trials preceded by a dangerous trial compared with trials preceded by a safe trial. However, analysis of current NoGo trials revealed that none of the main effects or interactions reached significance in both the behavioral and ERP results, indicating that the hypothesis holds true only if the prepared response needs to be executed.
Highlights
This study aims to investigate whether processing a prepared response toward a dangerous object in a previous trial influences subsequent trial processing
The parietal P3 amplitude of the safe and current dangerous (sD) condi‐ tion did not significantly differ from that of the safe and current safe (sS) condition over the left, middle and right parietal regions. These results indicated an increase in the parietal P3 amplitude in dangerous versus safe trials that were preceded by a dangerous trial relative to the parietal P3 amplitude in dangerous versus safe tri‐ als that were preceded by a safe trial
This motor interference effect diminished in trials that were preceded by a dangerous trial
Summary
This study aims to investigate whether processing a prepared response toward a dangerous object in a previous trial influences subsequent trial processing. In a working environment filled with dangerous elements, whether processing a prepared response when facing a dangerous object in a previous trial influences subsequent trial pro‐ cessing (i.e., a sequential trial effect based on the motor interfer‐ ence effect from dangerous objects) should be investigated. Clarifying this issue may yield experimental evidence regarding how successively presented dangerous objects are processed in a work environment. This study aimed to investigate this issue by further analyzing data from Liu et al (2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
