Relative performance of the two hands in simple and choice reaction time tasks

There is evidence that the left hemisphere is more competent for motor control than the right hemisphere. This study investigated whether this hemispheric asymmetry is expressed in the latency/duration of sequential responses performed by the left and/or right hands. Thirty-two right-handed young adults (16 males, 16 females; 18-25 years old) were tested in a simple or choice reaction time task. They responded to a left and/or right visual target by moving their left and/or right middle fingers between two keys on each side of the midline. Right hand reaction time did not differ from left hand reaction time. Submovement times were longer for the right hand than the left hand when the response was bilateral. Pause times were shorter for the right hand than the left hand, both when the responses were unilateral or bilateral. Reaction time results indicate that the putatively more efficient response preparation by the left hemisphere motor mechanisms is not expressed behaviorally. Submovement time and pause time results indicate that the putatively more efficient response execution by the left hemisphere motor mechanisms is expressed behaviorally. In the case of the submovements, the less efficient motor control of the left hand would be compensated by a more intense attention to this hand.

Relative performance of the two hands in simple and choice reaction time tasks.

There is evidence that the left hemisphere is more competent for motor control than the right hemisphere. This study investigated whether this hemispheric asymmetry is expressed in the latency/duration of sequential responses performed by the left and/or right hands. Thirty-two right-handed young adults (16 males, 16 females; 18-25 years old) were tested in a simple or choice reaction time task. They responded to a left and/or right visual target by moving their left and/or right middle fingers between two keys on each side of the midline. Right hand reaction time did not differ from left hand reaction time. Submovement times were longer for the right hand than the left hand when the response was bilateral. Pause times were shorter for the right hand than the left hand, both when the responses were unilateral or bilateral. Reaction time results indicate that the putatively more efficient response preparation by the left hemisphere motor mechanisms is not expressed behaviorally. Submovement time and pause time results indicate that the putatively more efficient response execution by the left hemisphere motor mechanisms is expressed behaviorally. In the case of the submovements, the less efficient motor control of the left hand would be compensated by a more intense attention to this hand.

Which factors are important for crossmodal attentional effect?

Some results in the literature suggest that crossmodal attention is very sensitive to the features of the experimental protocol. The current work examined the possible contribution of the asynchrony between the onset of the cue and the target (SOA) and the kind of task performed by the observer to the manifestation of crossmodal attentional effect. In a first experiment, a target (Gabor patch), whose spatial frequency had to be discriminated, was presented 133 or 159 ms after an auditory cue, in a close location on the same side or in a distant location on the opposite side. The crossmodal attentional effect was observed only for the 159 ms SOA. In a second experiment, the SOA was again 133 ms, but the location of the target had to be discriminated, instead of its spatial frequency. A crossmodal attentional effect was observed. The results of these two experiments indicate that crossmodal attentional effect depends on the SOA and the task. It takes longer to develop when the task requires the discrimination of the spatial frequency of the target than the discrimination of its location.

Facilitatory effects of an auditory warning stimulus in a visual location identification task and a visual shape identification task

The occurrence of a weak auditory warning stimulus increases the speed of the response to a subsequent visual target stimulus that must be identified. This facilitatory effect has been attributed to the temporal expectancy automatically induced by the warning stimulus. It has not been determined whether this results from a modulation of the stimulus identification process, the response selection process or both. The present study examined these possibilities. A group of 12 young adults performed a reaction time location identification task and another group of 12 young adults performed a reaction time shape identification task. A visual target stimulus was presented 1850 to 2350 ms plus a fixed interval (50, 100, 200, 400, 800, or 1600 ms, depending on the block) after the appearance of a fixation point, on its left or right side, above or below a virtual horizontal line passing through it. In half of the trials, a weak auditory warning stimulus (S1) appeared 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, or 1600 ms (according to the block) before the target stimulus (S2). Twelve trials were run for each condition. The S1 produced a facilitatory effect for the 200, 400, 800, and 1600 ms stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA) in the case of the side stimulus-response (S-R) corresponding condition, and for the 100 and 400 ms SOA in the case of the side S-R non-corresponding condition. Since these two conditions differ mainly by their response selection requirements, it is reasonable to conclude that automatic temporal expectancy influences the response selection process.

Facilitatory effects of an auditory warning stimulus in a visual location identification task and a visual shape identification task.

The occurrence of a weak auditory warning stimulus increases the speed of the response to a subsequent visual target stimulus that must be identified. This facilitatory effect has been attributed to the temporal expectancy automatically induced by the warning stimulus. It has not been determined whether this results from a modulation of the stimulus identification process, the response selection process or both. The present study examined these possibilities. A group of 12 young adults performed a reaction time location identification task and another group of 12 young adults performed a reaction time shape identification task. A visual target stimulus was presented 1850 to 2350 ms plus a fixed interval (50, 100, 200, 400, 800, or 1600 ms, depending on the block) after the appearance of a fixation point, on its left or right side, above or below a virtual horizontal line passing through it. In half of the trials, a weak auditory warning stimulus (S1) appeared 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, or 1600 ms (according to the block) before the target stimulus (S2). Twelve trials were run for each condition. The S1 produced a facilitatory effect for the 200, 400, 800, and 1600 ms stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA) in the case of the side stimulus-response (S-R) corresponding condition, and for the 100 and 400 ms SOA in the case of the side S-R non-corresponding condition. Since these two conditions differ mainly by their response selection requirements, it is reasonable to conclude that automatic temporal expectancy influences the response selection process.

Influence of cueing on the preparation and execution of untrained and trained complex motor responses

This study investigated the influence of cueing on the performance of untrained and trained complex motor responses. Healthy adults responded to a visual target by performing four sequential movements (complex response) or a single movement (simple response) of their middle finger. A visual cue preceded the target by an interval of 300, 1000, or 2000 ms. In Experiment 1, the complex and simple responses were not previously trained. During the testing session, the complex response pattern varied on a trial-by-trial basis following the indication provided by the visual cue. In Experiment 2, the complex response and the simple response were extensively trained beforehand. During the testing session, the trained complex response pattern was performed in all trials. The latency of the untrained and trained complex responses decreased from the short to the medium and long cue-target intervals. The latency of the complex response was longer than that of the simple response, except in the case of the trained responses and the long cue-target interval. These results suggest that the preparation of untrained complex responses cannot be completed in advance, this being possible, however, for trained complex responses when enough time is available. The duration of the 1st submovement, 1st pause and 2nd submovement of the untrained and the trained complex responses increased from the short to the long cue-target interval, suggesting that there is an increase of online programming of the response possibly related to the degree of certainty about the moment of target appearance.

Influence of cueing on the preparation and execution of untrained and trained complex motor responses.

This study investigated the influence of cueing on the performance of untrained and trained complex motor responses. Healthy adults responded to a visual target by performing four sequential movements (complex response) or a single movement (simple response) of their middle finger. A visual cue preceded the target by an interval of 300, 1000, or 2000 ms. In Experiment 1, the complex and simple responses were not previously trained. During the testing session, the complex response pattern varied on a trial-by-trial basis following the indication provided by the visual cue. In Experiment 2, the complex response and the simple response were extensively trained beforehand. During the testing session, the trained complex response pattern was performed in all trials. The latency of the untrained and trained complex responses decreased from the short to the medium and long cue-target intervals. The latency of the complex response was longer than that of the simple response, except in the case of the trained responses and the long cue-target interval. These results suggest that the preparation of untrained complex responses cannot be completed in advance, this being possible, however, for trained complex responses when enough time is available. The duration of the 1st submovement, 1st pause and 2nd submovement of the untrained and the trained complex responses increased from the short to the long cue-target interval, suggesting that there is an increase of online programming of the response possibly related to the degree of certainty about the moment of target appearance.

Automatic attention lateral asymmetry in visual discrimination tasks.

There is evidence that automatic visual attention favors the right side. This study investigated whether this lateral asymmetry interacts with the right hemisphere dominance for visual location processing and left hemisphere dominance for visual shape processing. Volunteers were tested in a location discrimination task and a shape discrimination task. The target stimuli (S2) could occur in the left or right hemifield. They were preceded by an ipsilateral, contralateral or bilateral prime stimulus (S1). The attentional effect produced by the right S1 was larger than that produced by the left S1. This lateral asymmetry was similar between the two tasks suggesting that the hemispheric asymmetries of visual mechanisms do not contribute to it. The finding that it was basically due to a longer reaction time to the left S2 than to the right S2 for the contralateral S1 condition suggests that the inhibitory component of attention is laterally asymmetric.

Lateral asymmetry of voluntary attention orienting

We recently demonstrated that automatic attention favors the right side of space and, in the present study, we investigated whether voluntary attention also favors this side. Six reaction time experiments were conducted. In each experiment, 12 new 18-25-year-old male right-handed individuals were tested. In Experiments 1, 2, 3 (a, b) and 4 (a, b), tasks with increasing attentional demands were used. In Experiments 1, 2, 3a, and 4a, attention was oriented to one or both sides by means of a central spatially informative visual cue. A left or right side visual target appeared 100, 300, or 500 ms later. Attentional effects were observed in the four experiments. In Experiments 2, 3a and 4a, these effects were greater when the cue indicated the right side than when it indicated the left side (respectively: 16 ± 10 and 44 ± 6 ms, P = 0.015, for stimulus onset asynchrony of 500 ms in Experiment 2; 38 ± 10 and 70 ± 7 ms, P = 0.011, for Experiment 3a, and 23 ± 11 and 61 ± 10 ms, P = 0.009, for Experiment 4a). In Experiments 3b and 4b, the central cue pointed to both sides and was said to be non-relevant for task performance. In these experiments right and left reaction times did not differ. The most conservative interpretation of the present findings is that voluntary attention orienting favors the right side of space, particularly when a difficult task has to be performed.

Lateral asymmetry of voluntary attention orienting.

We recently demonstrated that automatic attention favors the right side of space and, in the present study, we investigated whether voluntary attention also favors this side. Six reaction time experiments were conducted. In each experiment, 12 new 18-25-year-old male right-handed individuals were tested. In Experiments 1, 2, 3 (a, b) and 4 (a, b), tasks with increasing attentional demands were used. In Experiments 1, 2, 3a, and 4a, attention was oriented to one or both sides by means of a central spatially informative visual cue. A left or right side visual target appeared 100, 300, or 500 ms later. Attentional effects were observed in the four experiments. In Experiments 2, 3a and 4a, these effects were greater when the cue indicated the right side than when it indicated the left side (respectively: 16 +/- 10 and 44 +/- 6 ms, P = 0.015, for stimulus onset asynchrony of 500 ms in Experiment 2; 38 +/- 10 and 70 +/- 7 ms, P = 0.011, for Experiment 3a, and 23 +/- 11 and 61 +/- 10 ms, P = 0.009, for Experiment 4a). In Experiments 3b and 4b, the central cue pointed to both sides and was said to be non-relevant for task performance. In these experiments right and left reaction times did not differ. The most conservative interpretation of the present findings is that voluntary attention orienting favors the right side of space, particularly when a difficult task has to be performed.

Estudo comparativo entre a relação do hemisfério acometido no acidente vascular encefálico e a evolução funcional em indivíduos destros / Comparative study on the relationship between stroke hemisphere and functional evolution in right-handed individuals

OBJETIVO: O hemisfério esquerdo é dominante para o controle motor e o direito para a orientação espacial. Este estudo visou testar as hipóteses de que a lesão à esquerda causa maior prejuízo da movimentação voluntária e a lesão à direita resulta em perda na atenção espacial e no controle postural. Indivíduos com lesão à esquerda foram comparados com indivíduos com lesão à direita, com relação ao comprometimento inicial e recuperação três meses pós-lesão. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Vinte e dois indivíduos destros com lesão isquêmica no território da artéria cerebral média (11 à esquerda e 11 à direita) foram avaliados mensalmente nos três primeiros meses pós-lesão em termos de sensibilidade, tônus, força, postura, marcha, independência funcional e atenção espacial. RESULTADOS: Com relação ao comprometimento inicial, não houve diferença na sensibilidade, tônus, força, postura e atenção dos grupos. O grupo com lesão à esquerda apresentou pior desempenho inicial nos testes de marcha e de independência funcional. Com relação à taxa de recuperação, não houve diferenças na sensibilidade, tônus, força, postura, atenção e independência funcional dos dois grupos. Porém, a taxa de recuperação da marcha do grupo com lesão à esquerda foi inferior à do outro grupo. CONCLUSÕES: Foi confirmada a hipótese de que a lesão à esquerda causa maior comprometimento da movimentação voluntária, representada pela marcha e independência funcional, que a lesão à direita. Não foi obtida, no entanto, evidência de que a lesão à direita compromete de modo mais intenso a atenção espacial e a manutenção da postura que a lesão à esquerda.

OBJECTIVE: The left hemisphere is supposed to be dominant for motor control and the right hemisphere dominant for spatial orientation. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that left-side lesions cause greater impairment of voluntary movement, while right-side lesions cause loss of spatial attention loss and postural control. Individuals with left-side lesions were compared with individuals with right-side lesions, in relation to initial impairment and recovery three months after their stroke. METHODS: Twenty-two right-handed individuals with an ischemic lesion in the area of the middle cerebral artery (11 on the left side and 11 on the right side) were assessed monthly, for the first three months after their stroke, in terms of sensitivity, tonus, posture, gait, functional independence and spatial attention. RESULTS: In relation to the initial impairment, there was no difference in sensitivity, tonus, strength, posture and spatial attention between the groups. The left-side lesion group presented worse initial performance in gait and functional independence tests. In relation to the recovery rate, there were no differences in sensitivity, tonus, strength, posture, spatial attention or functional independence between the two groups. However, the gait recovery rate in the left-side lesion group was slower than in the other group. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis that left-side lesions cause greater impairment of voluntary movement (represented by gait and functional independence) than do right-side lesions was supported. However, no evidence that right-side lesions cause greater impairment of spatial attention and posture maintenance than do left-side lesions was found.

Evidence for divided automatic attention.

A long-standing debate in the literature is whether attention can form two or more independent spatial foci in addition to the well-known unique spatial focus. There is evidence that voluntary visual attention divides in space. The possibility that this also occurs for automatic visual attention was investigated here. Thirty-six female volunteers were tested. In each trial, a prime stimulus was presented in the left or right visual hemifield. This stimulus was characterized by the blinking of a superior, middle or inferior ring, the blinking of all these rings, or the blinking of the superior and inferior rings. A target stimulus to which the volunteer should respond with the same side hand or a target stimulus to which she should not respond was presented 100 ms later in a primed location, a location between two primed locations or a location in the contralateral hemifield. Reaction time to the positive target stimulus in a primed location was consistently shorter than reaction time in the horizontally corresponding contralateral location. This attentional effect was significantly smaller or absent when the positive target stimulus appeared in the middle location after the double prime stimulus. These results suggest that automatic visual attention can focus on two separate locations simultaneously, to some extent sparing the region in between.

Evidence for divided automatic attention

A long-standing debate in the literature is whether attention can form two or more independent spatial foci in addition to the well-known unique spatial focus. There is evidence that voluntary visual attention divides in space. The possibility that this also occurs for automatic visual attention was investigated here. Thirty-six female volunteers were tested. In each trial, a prime stimulus was presented in the left or right visual hemifield. This stimulus was characterized by the blinking of a superior, middle or inferior ring, the blinking of all these rings, or the blinking of the superior and inferior rings. A target stimulus to which the volunteer should respond with the same side hand or a target stimulus to which she should not respond was presented 100 ms later in a primed location, a location between two primed locations or a location in the contralateral hemifield. Reaction time to the positive target stimulus in a primed location was consistently shorter than reaction time in the horizontally corresponding contralateral location. This attentional effect was significantly smaller or absent when the positive target stimulus appeared in the middle location after the double prime stimulus. These results suggest that automatic visual attention can focus on two separate locations simultaneously, to some extent sparing the region in between.

Interlateral asymmetry in the time course of the effect of a peripheral prime stimulus.

Evidence exists that both right and left hemisphere attentional mechanisms are mobilized when attention is directed to the right visual hemifield and only right hemisphere attentional mechanisms are mobilized when attention is directed to the left visual hemifield. This arrangement might lead to a rightward bias of automatic attention. The hypothesis was investigated by testing male volunteers, wherein a "location discrimination" reaction time task (Experiments 1 and 3) and a "location and shape discrimination" reaction time task (Experiments 2 and 4) were used. Unilateral (Experiments 1 and 2) and unilateral or bilateral (Experiments 3 and 4) peripheral visual prime stimuli were used to control attention. Reaction time to a small visual target stimulus in the same location or in the horizontally opposite location was evaluated. Stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) were 34, 50, 67, 83 and 100 ms. An important prime stimulus attentional effect was observed as early as 50 ms in the four experiments. In Experiments 2, 3 and 4, this effect was larger when the prime stimulus occurred in the right hemifield than when it occurred in the left hemifield for SOA 100 ms. In Experiment 4, when the prime stimulus occurred simultaneously in both hemifields, reaction time was faster for the right hemifield and for SOA 100 ms. These results indicate that automatic attention tends to favor the right side of space, particularly when identification of the target stimulus shape is required.

Control of attention by a peripheral visual cue depends on whether the target is difficult to discriminate.

The influence of a peripheral cue represented by a gray ring on responsivity to a subsequent target varies. When a vertical line inside a ring was a go target and a white small ring inside a ring was a no-go target, reaction time was shorter at the same location relative to a different location. However, no reaction time difference between the two locations occurred when a white cross inside the ring, instead of the white vertical line inside the ring, was the go target. We investigated whether this last finding was due to a forward masking influence of the cue, a requirement of low attention for the discrimination or a lack of attention mobilization by the cue. In Experiment 1, the intensity of the cue was reduced in an attempt to reduce forward masking. In Experiment 2, the vertical line and the cross were presented in the same block of trials so as to be dealt with a common attentional strategy. In Experiments 3 and 4, the no-go target was a 45 masculine rotated cross inside a ring to increase the difficulty of the discrimination. No evidence was obtained that the cross was forward masked by the cue nor that it demanded less attention to be discriminated from the small ring. There was a facilitation of responsivity by the cue when the small ring was replaced by the rotated cross. The results suggest that when the discrimination to be performed is too easy the cue does not mobilize attention.

Control of attention by a peripheral visual cue depends on whether the target is difficult to discriminate

The influence of a peripheral cue represented by a gray ring on responsivity to a subsequent target varies. When a vertical line inside a ring was a go target and a white small ring inside a ring was a no-go target, reaction time was shorter at the same location relative to a different location. However, no reaction time difference between the two locations occurred when a white cross inside the ring, instead of the white vertical line inside the ring, was the go target. We investigated whether this last finding was due to a forward masking influence of the cue, a requirement of low attention for the discrimination or a lack of attention mobilization by the cue. In Experiment 1, the intensity of the cue was reduced in an attempt to reduce forward masking. In Experiment 2, the vertical line and the cross were presented in the same block of trials so as to be dealt with a common attentional strategy. In Experiments 3 and 4, the no-go target was a 45° rotated cross inside a ring to increase the difficulty of the discrimination. No evidence was obtained that the cross was forward masked by the cue nor that it demanded less attention to be discriminated from the small ring. There was a facilitation of responsivity by the cue when the small ring was replaced by the rotated cross. The results suggest that when the discrimination to be performed is too easy the cue does not mobilize attention.

Relative contribution of expectancy and immediate arousal to the facilitatory effect of an auditory accessory stimulus

An auditory stimulus speeds up a digital response to a subsequent visual stimulus. This facilitatory effect has been related to the expectancy and the immediate arousal that would be caused by the accessory stimulus. The present study examined the relative contribution of these two influences. In a first and a third experiment a simple reaction time task was used. In a second and fourth experiment a go/no-go reaction time task was used. In each of these experiments, the accessory stimulus preceded the target stimulus by 200 ms for one group of male and female volunteers (G Fix). For another group of similar volunteers (G Var) the accessory stimulus preceded the target stimulus by 200 ms in 25 percent of the trials, by 1000 ms in 25 percent of the trials and was not followed by the target stimulus in 50 percent of the trials (Experiments 1a and 1b) or preceded the target stimulus by 200 ms in 6 percent of the trials and by 1000 ms in 94 percent of the trials (Experiments 2a and 2b). There was a facilitatory effect of the accessory stimulus for G Fix in the four experiments. There was also a facilitatory effect of the accessory stimulus at the 200-ms stimulus onset asynchrony for G Var in Experiments 1a and 1b but not in Experiments 2a and 2b. The facilitatory effects observed were larger in the go/no-go task than in the simple task. Taken together, these results suggest that expectancy is much more important than immediate arousal for the improvement of performance caused by an accessory stimulus.

Relative contribution of expectancy and immediate arousal to the facilitatory effect of an auditory accessory stimulus.

An auditory stimulus speeds up a digital response to a subsequent visual stimulus. This facilitatory effect has been related to the expectancy and the immediate arousal that would be caused by the accessory stimulus. The present study examined the relative contribution of these two influences. In a first and a third experiment a simple reaction time task was used. In a second and fourth experiment a go/no-go reaction time task was used. In each of these experiments, the accessory stimulus preceded the target stimulus by 200 ms for one group of male and female volunteers (GFix). For another group of similar volunteers (GVar) the accessory stimulus preceded the target stimulus by 200 ms in 25% of the trials, by 1000 ms in 25% of the trials and was not followed by the target stimulus in 50% of the trials (Experiments 1a and 1b) or preceded the target stimulus by 200 ms in 6% of the trials and by 1000 ms in 94% of the trials (Experiments 2a and 2b). There was a facilitatory effect of the accessory stimulus for GFix in the four experiments. There was also a facilitatory effect of the accessory stimulus at the 200-ms stimulus onset asynchrony for GVar in Experiments 1a and 1b but not in Experiments 2a and 2b. The facilitatory effects observed were larger in the go/no-go task than in the simple task. Taken together, these results suggest that expectancy is much more important than immediate arousal for the improvement of performance caused by an accessory stimulus.

Experimental context modulates warning signal effects.

Previous studies have shown that saccadic eye responses but not manual responses were sensitive to the kind of warning signal used, with visual onsets producing longer saccadic latencies compared to visual offsets. The aim of the present study was to determine the effects of distinct warning signals on manual latencies and to test the premise that the onset interference, in fact, does not occur for manual responses. A second objective was to determine if the magnitude of the warning effects could be modulated by contextual procedures. Three experimental conditions based on the kind of warning signal used (visual onset, visual offset and auditory warning) were run in two different contexts (blocked and non-blocked). Eighteen participants were asked to respond to the imperative stimulus that would occur some milliseconds (0, 250, 500 or 750 ms) after the warning signal. The experiment consisted in three experimental sessions of 240 trials, where all the variables were counterbalanced. The data showed that visual onsets produced longer manual latencies than visual offsets in the non-blocked context (275 vs 261 ms; P < 0.001). This interference was obtained, however, only for short intervals between the warning and the stimulus, and was abolished when the blocked context was used (256 vs 255 ms; P = 0.789). These results are discussed in terms of bottom-up and top-down interactions, mainly those related to the role of attentional processing in cancelling out competitive interactions and suppressive influences of a distractor on the relevant stimulus.

Experimental context modulates warning signal effects

Previous studies have shown that saccadic eye responses but not manual responses were sensitive to the kind of warning signal used, with visual onsets producing longer saccadic latencies compared to visual offsets. The aim of the present study was to determine the effects of distinct warning signals on manual latencies and to test the premise that the onset interference, in fact, does not occur for manual responses. A second objective was to determine if the magnitude of the warning effects could be modulated by contextual procedures. Three experimental conditions based on the kind of warning signal used (visual onset, visual offset and auditory warning) were run in two different contexts (blocked and non-blocked). Eighteen participants were asked to respond to the imperative stimulus that would occur some milliseconds (0, 250, 500 or 750 ms) after the warning signal. The experiment consisted in three experimental sessions of 240 trials, where all the variables were counterbalanced. The data showed that visual onsets produced longer manual latencies than visual offsets in the non-blocked context (275 vs 261 ms; P < 0.001). This interference was obtained, however, only for short intervals between the warning and the stimulus, and was abolished when the blocked context was used (256 vs 255 ms; P = 0.789). These results are discussed in terms of bottom-up and top-down interactions, mainly those related to the role of attentional processing in canceling out competitive interactions and suppressive influences of a distractor on the relevant stimulus.