Flanker interference at both stimulus and response levels decreases with age.

When trying to identify the colour of a target, people's performance is impaired by nearby distractors of different colours. It is controversial whether these interference effects originate from competing stimuli, competing responses or from both simultaneously. These interference effects may also differ depending on a person's age. Comparisons between studies show mixed results, while differences in experimental design and data analysis complicate the interpretation. In our study, we manipulated the relative proportions of congruent and incongruent trials with respect to both stimuli and responses. Considering this aspect, we asked whether people resolve stimulus and response interference differently at different ages. 92 children (6-14 years), 25 young adults (20-43 years) and 33 older adults (60-84 years) performed a coloured version of the Eriksen flanker task. Since reaction times and errors were correlated, inverse efficiency scores were used to address speed-accuracy trade-offs between groups. Absolute interference effects were used to measure relationships with age. The results showed first, unexpectedly, that response interference was comparable between stimulus- and response-balanced conditions. Second, performance at all ages was significantly influenced both by competing stimuli and responses. Most importantly, the size of interference effects decreased with age. These findings cast some doubt on the conclusions of previous studies, and raise further questions about how cognitive control is best measured across the lifespan.

Do sounds near the hand facilitate tactile reaction times? Four experiments and a meta-analysis provide mixed support and suggest a small effect size.

The brain represents the space immediately surrounding the body differently to more distant parts of space. Direct evidence for this 'peripersonal space' representation comes from neurophysiological studies in monkeys, which show distance-dependent responses to visual stimuli in neurons with spatially coincident tactile responses. Most evidence for peripersonal space in humans is indirect: spatial- and distance-dependent modulations of reaction times and error rates in behavioural tasks. In one task often used to assess peripersonal space, sounds near the body have been argued to speed reactions to tactile stimuli. We conducted four experiments attempting to measure this distance-dependent audiotactile interaction. We found no distance-dependent enhancement of tactile processing in error rates or task performance, but found some evidence for a general speeding of reaction times by 9.5 ms when sounds were presented near the hand. A systematic review revealed an overestimation of reported effect sizes, lack of control conditions, a wide variety of methods, post hoc removal of data, and flexible methods of data analysis. After correcting for the speed of sound, removing biased or inconclusive studies, correcting for temporal expectancy, and using the trim-and-fill method to correct for publication bias, meta-analysis revealed an overall benefit of 15.2 ms when tactile stimuli are accompanied by near sounds compared to sounds further away. While this effect may be due to peripersonal space, response probability and the number of trials per condition explained significant proportions of variance in this near versus far benefit. These confounds need to be addressed, and alternative explanations ruled out by future, ideally pre-registered, studies.

Locating primary somatosensory cortex in human brain stimulation studies: experimental evidence.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over human primary somatosensory cortex (S1) does not produce immediate outputs. Researchers must therefore rely on indirect methods for TMS coil positioning. The "gold standard" is to use individual functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data, but the majority of studies don't do this. The most common method to locate the hand area of S1 (S1-hand) is to move the coil posteriorly from the hand area of primary motor cortex (M1-hand). Yet, S1-hand is not directly posterior to M1-hand. We localized the index finger area of S1-hand (S1-index) experimentally in four ways. First, we reanalyzed functional MRI data from 20 participants who received vibrotactile stimulation to their 10 digits. Second, to assist the localization of S1-hand without MRI data, we constructed a probabilistic atlas of the central sulcus from 100 healthy adult MRIs and measured the likely scalp location of S1-index. Third, we conducted two experiments mapping the effects of TMS across the scalp on tactile discrimination performance. Fourth, we examined all available neuronavigation data from our laboratory on the scalp location of S1-index. Contrary to the prevailing method, and consistent with systematic review evidence, S1-index is close to the C3/C4 electroencephalography (EEG) electrode locations on the scalp, ~7-8 cm lateral to the vertex, and ~2 cm lateral and 0.5 cm posterior to the M1-hand scalp location. These results suggest that an immediate revision to the most commonly used heuristic to locate S1-hand is required. The results of many TMS studies of S1-hand need reassessment. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Noninvasive human brain stimulation requires indirect methods to target particular brain areas. Magnetic stimulation studies of human primary somatosensory cortex have used scalp-based heuristics to find the target, typically locating it 2 cm posterior to the motor cortex. We measured the scalp location of the hand area of primary somatosensory cortex and found that it is ~2 cm lateral to motor cortex. Our results suggest an immediate revision of the prevailing method is required.

Locating primary somatosensory cortex in human brain stimulation studies: systematic review and meta-analytic evidence.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over human primary somatosensory cortex (S1), unlike over primary motor cortex (M1), does not produce an immediate, objective output. Researchers must therefore rely on one or more indirect methods to position the TMS coil over S1. The "gold standard" method of TMS coil positioning is to use individual functional and structural magnetic resonance imaging (f/sMRI) alongside a stereotactic navigation system. In the absence of these facilities, however, one common method used to locate S1 is to find the scalp location that produces twitches in a hand muscle (e.g., the first dorsal interosseus, M1-FDI) and then move the coil posteriorly to target S1. There has been no systematic assessment of whether this commonly reported method of finding the hand area of S1 is optimal. To do this, we systematically reviewed 124 TMS studies targeting the S1 hand area and 95 fMRI studies involving passive finger and hand stimulation. Ninety-six TMS studies reported the scalp location assumed to correspond to S1-hand, which was on average 1.5-2 cm posterior to the functionally defined M1-hand area. Using our own scalp measurements combined with similar data from MRI and TMS studies of M1-hand, we provide the estimated scalp locations targeted in these TMS studies of the S1-hand. We also provide a summary of reported S1 coordinates for passive finger and hand stimulation in fMRI studies. We conclude that S1-hand is more lateral to M1-hand than assumed by the majority of TMS studies.