Lisa R. Fournier

Electrophysiological, behavioral, and subjective indexes of workload when performing multiple tasks: manipulations of task difficulty and training

This study examined whether alpha event-related desynchronization (ERD) and theta event-related synchronization (ERS) could successfully measure changes in cognitive workload and training while an operator was engaged in a continuous, interactive, control task(s). Alpha 1 (8-10 Hz) ERD, alpha 2 (10-12 Hz) ERD, and theta (3-7 Hz) ERS were determined for a communications event that occurred during multiple task workload conditions or as a single task. Other measures (alpha and theta EEG power, heart rate, respiration, eye blinks, behavioral performance, and subjective workload ratings) were also evaluated. Results showed that alpha 2 EEG, heart rate, behavioral, and subjective measures were sensitive to changes in workload in the multiple tasks. In addition, eye blink rate and behavioral measures were sensitive to training. Alpha ERD and theta ERS were not sensitive to workload and training in our interactive, multiple task environment. However, they were effective indexes of cognitive/behavioral demands within an interactive single task.

How much processing do nonattended stimuli receive? Apparently very little, but...

The early versus late selection issue in attention models was examined by means of a new methodology. Through cues or precues, attention was directed to one location of a multistimulus visual display and, while attention was so engaged, the identity of a stimulus located at a different position in the display was changed. By varying the time after display onset before the stimulus was changed, we controlled the preview time that the original stimulus was represented on the retina. Then, using a marker cue, we directed the subject’s attention to the location of the changed stimulus. The subject’s response was a timed discrimination between two possible target letters. The data of main interest was the effect of preview time upon the subject’s latency in identifying the new target that appeared in the changed location. We found that the preview time of the original stimulus, before RT was affected to the new target, depended upon whether the original stimulus was a neutral (noise) letter or whether it was the alternative target. When the original stimulus was a noise letter, RTs to the new target were just as fast as those obtained in the control condition in which the target was present throughout the preview interval and did not change its identity. Significant effects upon RT were obtained at preview times of 83 msec when the original stimulus was one of the targets that changed to the alternative target. Preview times also varied as a function of precuing. Preview times were correspondingly shortened when the first cue occurred 50 msec before display onset, thus providing an extra 50 msec for attention to be directed to the first display location. The results were interpreted in terms of two separate information-processing systems in the human: an automatic system and an attentional system. Even though a stimulus may have been automatically processed, when the attention system is directed to that stimulus, processing starts at the beginning again.

Coactivation in the perception of redundant targets.

Reaction time (RT) to redundant stimuli was investigated while controlling for distraction effects and response competition. In Experiment 1, a redundancy gain was found for 2 target letters with identical features (redundant) compared to trials in which 2 different targets shared the same response assignment (compatible) indicating coactivation of stimulus inputs. No difference in RTs was found between compatible displays and displays containing 2 targets with different responses (incompatible), suggesting (with other evidence) that letters were serially processed. In Experiment 2, a redundancy gain was again found. Unlike in Experiment 1, incompatible displays produced response competition, indicating a redundancy gain with parallel processing. Three forms of redundancy gains operating under specific conditions are discussed.

Processing redundant signals: Coactivation, divided attention, or what?

The evidence for and against a redundancy gain in reaction time (RT) when the target is repeated in the visual display is reviewed. We consider the relevance of redundancy gains under these circumstances to the question of whether attention can be simultaneously directed to separate locations in the visual field. In the present experiments, two capital letters were the target stimuli in a two-alternative forced-choice RT paradigm. In addition to the usual conditions of single-target trials, trials on which the target is repeated in the display, and trials on which the target occurs with a noise letter, we introduced the innovation of a condition in which both targets occur in the display. In our two experiments, RT was fastest with single-target displays and slowest with displays containing a target and a noise letter. There was no significant difference in RT to displays in which the target was repeated and displays in which both targets were presented. Both conditions showed a redundancy gain when compared with displays containing a target and a noise letter. The lack of response competition in the both-targets condition and the overall pattern of the results were well explained by a unitary attentional focus that serially processed the letters in the display. Analyses of minima and maxima RTs were consistent with this interpretation.

Good vibrations? Vibrotactile self-stimulation reveals anticipation of body-related action effects in motor control

Previous research suggests that motor actions are intentionally generated by recollecting their sensory consequences. Whereas this has been shown to apply to visual or auditory consequences in the environment, surprisingly little is known about the contribution of immediate, body-related consequences, such as proprioceptive and tactile reafferences. Here, we report evidence for a contribution of vibrotactile reafferences to action selection by using a response–effect compatibility paradigm. More precisely, anticipating actions to cause spatially incompatible vibrations delayed responding to a small but reliable degree. Whereas this observation suggests functional equivalence of body-related and environment-related reafferences to action control, the future application of the described experimental procedure might reveal functional peculiarities of specific types of sensory consequences in action control.

Multiple-feature discrimination faster than single feature discrimination within the same object?

In the present study, we investigated whether judging the presence of multiple features within an object would be superior to judging the presence of only one feature. Feature discriminability and the number of features to discriminate within an object were varied. Specific features were judged as present or absent. Results showed that judging the presence of two or three features was faster than judging the presence of the less discriminable of these two or three features alone (multiple-feature benefits). These findings suggest that relevant features within an object activate (prime) a decision or response in a parallel, asynchronous fashion based on discriminability (Miller, 1982a). The ability of a response priming model, a response mapping model, and a template model to account for multiple feature benefits is discussed.

Selective attentional delays and attentional capture among simultaneous visual onset elements

Visual discrimination and detection responses to a single stimulus presented simultaneously with noise stimuli are slower and less accurate than are responses to a single stimulus presented alone. This occurs even though the location of the relevant stimulus (target) is known or visually indicated with stimuli onset. Results showed that noise elements delay focal attending and processing of a target. Furthermore, precuing the target location reduces, and can eliminate, target processing delays. Processing delays were not due to response competition or to random attentional capture by noise. It is suggested that simultaneous stimuli are perceived initially as a single object, and delays in processing a single stimulus are due to difficulties in perceptually segregating this stimulus from noise. Precuing is assumed to facilitate this segregation process.

An action sequence withheld in memory can delay execution of visually guided actions: The generalization of response compatibility interference.

Withholding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action, if the actions share a similar (compatible) action feature (i.e., response hand). This phenomenon, termed compatibility interference (CI), was found for identity-based actions that do not require visual guidance. The authors examined whether CI can generalize to both identity-based and location-based actions that require visual guidance. Participants withheld a planned action based on the identity of a stimulus and then immediately executed a visually guided action (touch response) to a 2nd stimulus based on its color identity (Experiment 1), its spatial location (Experiment 2), or an intrinsic spatial location within an object (Experiment 3). Results showed CI for both left- and right-hand responses in Experiment 1. However, CI occurred for left- but not right-hand responses in Experiment 2 and 3. This suggests that CI can generalize to visually guided actions under cognitive control but not to actions that invoke automatic visual-control mechanisms where the left hemisphere may play a special role (C. Gonzalez, T. Ganel, & M. Goodale, 2006). The code occupation account for CI (G. Stoet & B. Hommel, 2002) is also discussed.

An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus, but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli

Withholding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) action feature (e.g., response hand). We investigated whether this phenomenon, termed compatibility interference (CI), occurs for responses associated with a target as well as responses associated with distractors in a visual selection task. Participants planned and withheld a sequence of keypress responses (with their right or left hand), according to the identity of a stimulus (A), and then immediately executed a keypress response (with their right or left hand) to a second stimulus (B), according to the identity of a target letter appearing alone or among distractor letters. Distractor letters were either response compatible or incompatible with the target and appeared either simultaneously with the target (Experiments 1A and 2) or 100 msec before the target (Experiment 1B). Also, stimulus—response mapping was either 1:1 (Experiment 1) or 2:1 (Experiment 2). Results showed that the response to the Stimulus B target was delayed when it required the same response hand as Stimulus A, as opposed to a different hand. Also, the target reaction time for Stimulus B was greater when the target was flanked by incompatible distractors than when it was flanked by compatible distractors. Moreover, the degree of CI was consistent across the compatible-, incompatible-, and no-distractor conditions, indicating that CI generalizes to responses associated with a target, but not to those associated with distractors. Thus, CI occurs at a response selection, not at a response activation stage. Implications for the code occupation account for CI (e.g., Stoet & Hommel, 1999, 2002) and an alternative account for CI are discussed.

The dimensionality of the flanker compatibility effect: A psychophysiological analysis

The psychophysiological approach was used to evaluate the effects of feature similarity and “intrinsic response mapping” on the flanker compatibility effect. Symbol (e.g., < > < and < / <) and letter arrays (e.g., HCH and SCS) were used. Results showed that delays in stimulus evaluation and both peripheral and central response competition contributed to the compatibility effect, with the contribution of these processes depending on feature similarity and the intrinsic response mapping of the stimuli. For letter stimuli, the difference in the size of the compatibility effect for similar and dissimilar arrays could be accounted for in terms of stimulus evaluation. For symbol arrays, differences in size of the compatibility effect could be accounted for by response competition. Thus, symbol and letter arrays do not appear to be processed differently; what is different is the degree to which stimulus and response-related processes are affected by incompatibility.