Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of alerting signals in action control: activation of S–R associations or inhibition of executive control processes?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Non-informative, task-irrelevant auditory alerting signals often lead to increased interference effects in selective attention paradigms (e.g., Simon, Eriksen flanker). Some authors conclude that the alerting attentional network, activated by the alerting signal, reveals an inhibitory influence upon the executive attentional network, resulting in attenuated executive control. Alternatively, in the present study we argue that increased interference effects might be explained by alerting signals facilitating response activation processes (i.e., the activation of established S–R links). In a modified Eriksen-flanker paradigm, we contrasted these assumptions. We used word flanker stimuli for which S–R associations were established and word flanker stimuli without S–R associations. The presence of an alerting signal increased flanker compatibility only for flanker stimuli for which S–R associations existed while flanker compatibility effects were the same for all flanker types in conditions without alerting signals. Therefore, we conclude that alerting signals enhance stimulus triggered visuo-motor response activation processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this comparison.

  2. It should be noted that there is a theoretical possibility to preserve the assumption that alerting signals negatively influence the executive control system. This, however, requires a number of additional assumptions. For example, one would have to assume that interference effects based on semantic analysis of the stimulus are less vulnerable to modulations by the reduced efficiency of the executive control system than interference effects based on S-R link processing. In consequence, however, this means that different stages of processing (e.g., semantic classification vs. response selection) are controlled by specialized executive control systems with specific susceptibilities to alerting signals. We thank an anonymous reviewer for mentioning this possibility.

References

  • Abrams, R. L., & Greenwald, A. G. (2000). Parts outweigh the whole (word) in unconscious analysis of meaning. Psychological Science, 11, 118–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, R. L., Klinger, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Subliminal words activate semantic categories (not automated motor responses). Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 100–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, I. H., Rose, R., & Ashe, V. (1970). Preparatory state effects in intersensory facilitation. Psychonomic Science, 19, 113–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böckler, A., Alpay, G., & Stürmer, B. (2011). Accessory stimuli affect the emergence of conflict, not conflict control: a Simon-task ERP study. Experimental Psychology, 58, 102–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Callejas, A., Lupiáñez, J., Funes, M. J., & Tudela, P. (2005). Modulations among the alerting, orienting and executive control networks. Experimental Brain Research, 167, 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callejas, A., Lupiáñez, J., & Tudela, P. (2004). The three attentional networks: on their independence and interactions. Brain and Cognition, 54, 225–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 11, 529–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Correa, A., Lupiáñez, J., Madrid, E., & Tudela, P. (2006). Temporal attention enhances early visual processing: a review and new evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research, 1076, 116–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Damian, M. F. (2001). Congruity effects evoked by subliminally presented primes: automaticity rather than semantic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 27, 154–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec’h, G., Koechlin, E., Müller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., et al. (1998). Imaging unconcious semantic priming. Nature, 395, 597–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W. (1995). The flanker task and response competition: a useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. Visual Cognition, 2, 101–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., Coles, M. G. H., Morris, L. R., & O’Hara, W. P. (1985). An electromyographic examination of response competition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 165–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: a continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception and Psychophysics, 25, 249–263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340–347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fenske, M. J., & Eastwood, J. D. (2003). Modulation of focused attention by faces expressing emotion: evidence from flanker tasks. Emotion, 3, 327–343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., Plessow, F., & Kiesel, A. (2010). Auditory warning signals affect mechanisms of response selection: evidence from a Simon task. Experimental Psychology, 57, 89–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., & Schubert, T. (2008). Valence processing bypassing the response selection bottleneck? Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Experimental Psychology, 55, 203–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., Schubert, T., & Liepelt, R. (2007). Accessory stimuli modulate effects of non-conscious priming. Perception and Psychophysics, 69, 9–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., Sirevaag, E. J., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1988). Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: a psychological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 14, 331–344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hackley, S. A., & Valle-Inclán, F. (1998). Automatic alerting does not speed late motoric processes in a reaction-time task. Nature, 391, 786–788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hackley, S. A., & Valle-Inclán, F. (1999). Accessory stimulus effects on response selection: does arousal speed decision making? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 321–329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hackley, S. A., & Valle-Inclán, F. (2003). Which stages of processing are speeded by a warning signal? Biological Psychology, 64, 27–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heil, M., Osman, A., Wiegelmann, J., Rolke, B., & Hennighausen, E. (2000). N200 in the Eriksen-task: inhibitory executive processes? Journal of Psychophysiology, 14, 218–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jepma, M., Wagenmakers, E. J., Band, G. P., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2009). The effects of accessory stimuli on information processing: evidence from electrophysiology and a diffusion model analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 847–864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., & Miller, J. (2007). Impact of contingency manipulations on accessory stimulus effects. Perception and Psychophysics, 69, 1117–1125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: on the origins of response congruency effects. Psychological Research, 71, 117–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leuthold, H., Sommer, W., & Ulrich, R. (1996). Partial advance information and response preparation: Inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 125, 307–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Low, K. A., Larson, S. L., Burke, J., & Hackley, S. A. (1996). Alerting effects on choice reaction time and the photic eyeblink reflex. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 98, 385–393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magen, H., & Cohen, A. (2002). Action-based and vision-based selection of input: two sources of control. Psychological Research, 66(4), 247–259.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mattler, U. (2005). Flanker effects on motor output and the late-level response activation hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 58, 577–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Hackley, S. A. (1992). Electrophysiological evidence for temporal overlap among contingent mental processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 121, 195–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Gethmann, H., Ulrich, R., & Rinkenauer, G. (2003). Locus of the effect of temporal preparation: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology, 40, 597–611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, O., & Klotz, W. (1994). Motor responses to non-reportable masked stimuli: where is the limit of direct motor specification? In C. Umiltá & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 123–150). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, P., & Näätänen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 133–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, A., & Moore, C. M. (1993). The locus of dual-task interference: psychological refractory effects on movement-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1292–1312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, A., Moore, C. M., & Ulrich, R. (1995). Bisecting RT with lateralized readiness potentials: precue effects after LRP onset. Acta Psychologica, 90, 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale: Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review Neuroscience, 13, 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, A., & Buhle, J. (2006). Typologies of attentional networks. Nature Review Neuroscience, 7, 367–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolke, B., & Hofmann, P. (2007). Temporal uncertainty degrades perceptual processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 522–526.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. F., & Lamers, J. M. (2002). The Eriksen-flanker effect revisited. Acta Psychologica, 109(1), 41–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, W. O., & LaBerge, D. (1979). Automatic semantic processing of unattended words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(4), 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus–response compatibility (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, J., & Rammsayer, T. H. (2005). Accessory stimulation in the time course of visuomotor information processing: stimulus intensity effects on reaction time and response force. Acta Psychologica, 120, 1–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoffels, E. J., van der Molen, M. W., & Keuss, P. J. G. (1985). Intersensory facilitation and inhibition: Immediate arousal and location effects of auditory noise on visual choice reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 58, 45–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behaviorial and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R., & Mattes, S. (1996). Does immediate arousal enhance response force in simple reaction time? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 49, 972–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarzbach, J. (2003). Different time courses for visual perception and action priming. PNAS, 100, 6275–6280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., & Hommel, B. (2007). The costs and benefits of cross-task priming. Memory and Cognition, 35(5), 1175–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2008). The impact of stimulus-specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks. Psychological Research, 72, 425–432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant of the German Research Foundation (DFG, FI 1624/2-1). We thank Susann Schade for assistance in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062, Dresden, Germany

    Rico Fischer & Franziska Plessow

  2. Department of Psychology, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Andrea Kiesel

Authors
  1. Rico Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franziska Plessow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Kiesel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rico Fischer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fischer, R., Plessow, F. & Kiesel, A. The effects of alerting signals in action control: activation of S–R associations or inhibition of executive control processes?. Psychological Research 76, 317–328 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0350-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0350-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation