Response Priming Paradigm Research Articles

Preparing not to move: Does no-response priming affect advance movement preparation processes in a response priming task?

The response-priming paradigm is frequently employed to study motor control by means of behavioural as well as psychophysiological methods. In this paradigm, response performance is studied under various preparation conditions, but in all cases participants are generally primed for action. This setting neglects an essential ability of the motor system in everyday situations, i.e. the efficient execution of a movement with and without warning. In this context the present experiment assessed the behavioural effects of a modified response-priming paradigm, in which participants were asked to execute movements when primed for action, and when the prime predicted that no response would be required. Thirty volunteers participated the experiment, which tested whether the insertion of no-response trials would affect the validity effect, and assessed the differences between invalid trials and reactions performed subsequent to no-response primes. The data showed that the validity effect is not modulated by the added no-response condition, which suggests that movement preparation mechanisms can be studied with this particular task. In addition, responses in invalid trials were substantially different from responses executed after no-response primes. These results are interpreted in relation to psychophysiological evidence on advance movement preparation. It is proposed that the performance differences between response- and no-response priming conditions may be due to different preactivations of motor regions evoked by the prime stimuli, a hypothesis to be addressed with psychophysiological measures in the future.

Central response selection is present during memory scanning, but hand-specific response preparation is absent

Two experiments were performed to replicate the results of Ilan and Miller that response selection but no response-hand specific preparation is present during memory scanning. Letter-case determined which hand would respond, while memory set membership status determined whether the response was to be executed (go) or withheld (nogo). In Exp. 1, the LRP was observed as an index of response-hand specific preparation. In Exp. 2, the consistency effect derived from the response priming paradigm was observed as an index of more central response selection. The results replicate those of Ilan and Miller and suggest that central response selection is present during short-term memory scanning, but hand-specific response preparation is absent. Apparently, preliminary information is transmitted to the response selection stage during memory scanning, a finding that is inconsistent with serial stage models, but memory scanning interferes with hand-specific response preparation.

Comparing two methods of informing operators about what might happen next

Operator performance is dependent upon the level of certainty of what will happen next. Knowledge about this certainty can be given by long-term experience of the occurrence of events or by secondary information given immediately before the event. We define these methods as, respectively, memory-dependent and display-dependent. In this experiment nine groups of twelve subjects performed four-choice finger-pressing tasks in response to visual signals. The tasks were based upon the unbalanced frequencies and response priming paradigms of experimental psychology corresponding to the two methods of providing information thus defined. The tasks varied in mean certainty as well as in source of knowledge about the certainty. Mean reaction times varied, to a statistically significant degree, with level of certainty and, for events of low certainty, with the method of presenting information about certainty. Error rates varied inversely with the same factors but not all differences in this respect were statisticall...

The preparation of actions and parameters of action: A fixed or variable process?

Some information processing models consider the selection of an action plan (deciding what to do) and the parameterization of the action (deciding how to do it) as separate stages in movement preparation. Further, these models consider the stages to occur in a fixed order, whereby the selection of an action precedes the parameterization of the action. Five experiments are reported that tested this position. The first four experiments adopted a variation of Rosenbaum's (1980) precuing technique such that, under varying conditions, different amounts and types of advance information were provided to the subject, leaving only the unspecified action or parameter to be supplied following the imperative signal. The critical finding from each study was that the time to specify an action and the time to specify a parameter were equivalent. In experiment 5, similar results were obtained using a response priming paradigm (Rosenbaum and Kornblum 1982). The results of all five studies failed to support a fixed-order model of movement preparation and are more consistent with a variable-order model. The implications of these findings for other models of movement preparation are discussed.