Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 23–29 | Cite as

Intersensory facilitation in the motor component?

A reaction time analysis
  • Adele Diederich
  • Hans Colonius
Article

Summary

In the bimodal detection task the observer must respond as soon as a signal is presented in either of two modalities (e.g., a tone or a flash). A typical finding is a facilitation of reaction time for redundant signal trials, that is, when both signals are presented simultaneously or with a short delay. Models advanced for this effect imply either statistical facilitation (separate activation) or intersensory facilitation (coactivation). This paper reports a study investigating whether part of the facilitation can be accounted for by coactivation in the motor component. An analysis of the distributions of reaction time differences between left and right hand responses from a double response paradigm gave some evidence in favor of this hypothesis. In particular, our data suggest a u-shaped functional dependence of the amount of facilitation in the motor component on the interstimulus interval.

Keywords

Reaction Time Time Difference Functional Dependence Detection Task Interstimulus Interval 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Annett, M., & Annett, J. (1979). Individual differences in right and left reaction times. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 393–404.Google Scholar
  2. Ashby, F. G. (1982). Deriving exact predictions from the cascade model. Psychological Review, 89, 599–607.Google Scholar
  3. Burbeck, S. L., & Luce, R. D. (1982). Evidence from auditory simple reaction times for both change and level detectors. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 117–133.Google Scholar
  4. Colonius, H. (1986). Measuring channel dependence in separate activation models. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 251–255.Google Scholar
  5. Gielen, S. C. A. M., Schmidt, R. A., & van den Heuvel, P. J. M. (1983). On the nature of intersensory facilitation of reaction time. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 161–168.Google Scholar
  6. Kiefer, J. (1959). K-sample analogues of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Cramer-v. Mises test. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 30, 420–447.Google Scholar
  7. Kohfeld, D. L., Santee, J. L., & Wallace, N. D. (1981). Loudness and reaction times: II. Identification of detection components at different intensities and frequencies. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 550–562.Google Scholar
  8. Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times. Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86, 287–330.Google Scholar
  10. Meyer, D. E., Yantis, S., Osman, A., & Smith, J. E. K. (1984). Discrete versus continuous models of response: A reaction time analysis. In S. Kornblum, & J. Requin (Eds.), Preparatory States and Processes: Proceedings of the Franco-American Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, August, 1982. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.Google Scholar
  12. Nickerson, R. S. (1973). Intersensory facilitation of reaction time: Energy summation or preparation enhancement? Psychological Review, 80, 489–509.Google Scholar
  13. Raab, D. H. (1962). Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 24, 574–590.Google Scholar
  14. Schmidt, R. A., Gielen, S. C. A. M., & van den Heuvel. P. J. M. (1984). The locus of intersensory facilitation of reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 57, 145–164.Google Scholar
  15. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. In W. G. Koster (Ed.), Attention & Performance II. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.Google Scholar
  16. Todd, J. W. (1912). Reaction to multiple stimuli. Archives of Psychology, 25, 1–65.Google Scholar
  17. Ulrich, R., & Stapf, K. H. (1984). A double response paradigm to study stimulus intensity effects upon the motor system in simple reaction time experiments. Perception & Psychophysics, 36, 545–558.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adele Diederich
    • 1
  • Hans Colonius
    • 2
  1. 1.Psychologisches Institut IUniversität HamburgHamburg 13Federal Republic of Germany
  2. 2.Institut für KognitionsforschungUniversität OldenburgOldenburgFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations