Engineering topics

Ivry, Richard B.

Publications and source records attributed to Ivry, Richard B..

3 records

NASA NTRS2003

Bimanual cross-talk during reaching movements is primarily related to response selection, not the specification of motor parameters

Simultaneous reaching movements made with the two hands can show a considerable increase in reaction time (RT) when they differ in terms of direction or extent, compared to when the movements involve the same direction and extent. This cost has been attributed to cross-talk in the specification of the motor parameters for the two hands. However, a recent study [Diedrichsen, Hazeltine, Kennerley, & Ivry, (2001). Psychological Science, 12, 493-498] indicates that when reaching movements are cued by the onset of the target endpoint, no compatibility effects are observed. To determine why directly cued movements are immune from interference, we varied the stimulus onset asynchrony for the two movements and used different combinations of directly cued and symbolically cued movements. In two experiments, compatibility effects were only observed when both movements were symbolically cued. No difference was found between compatible and incompatible movements when both movements were directly cued or when one was directly cued and the other was symbolically cued. These results indicate that interference is not related to the specification of movement parameters but instead emerges from processes associated with response selection. Moreover, the data suggest that cross-talk, when present, primarily shortens the RT of the second movement on compatible trials rather than lengthening this RT on incompatible trials.

Randomized Controlled Trial↗

NASA NTRS2002

Simultaneous dual-task performance reveals parallel response selection after practice

E. H. Schumacher, T. L. Seymour, J. M. Glass, D. E. Kieras, and D. E. Meyer (2001) reported that dual-task costs are minimal when participants are practiced and give the 2 tasks equal emphasis. The present research examined whether such findings are compatible with the operation of an efficient response selection bottleneck. Participants trained until they were able to perform both tasks simultaneously without interference. Novel stimulus pairs produced no reaction time costs, arguing against the development of compound stimulus-response associations (Experiment 1). Manipulating the relative onsets (Experiments 2 and 4) and durations (Experiments 3 and 4) of response selection processes did not lead to dual-task costs. The results indicate that the 2 tasks did not share a bottleneck after practice.

Practice (Psychology)↗

NASA NTRS1995

The PRP Effect Following Callosotomy: Residual Interference Despite Uncoupling of Lateralized Response Codes

A callosotomy patient was tested in two dual-task experiments requiring successive speeded responses to lateralized stimuli. In accord with the recent findings of Pashler, O'Brien, Luck, Hillyard, Mangun, and Gazzaniga (in press), the patient showed a robust psychological refractory period effect (PRP) responses on Task 2 were inversely related to the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA). However, three aspects of our data indicated that the processing limitations for the patient were different than those observed with control subjects. First, the split-brain patient did not show an increase in reaction time when the two tasks required responses from a common output system (i.e., both manual responses) in comparison to when different output systems were used (i.e., manual-vocal). Second, inconsistent stimulus-response mappings for the two tasks greatly inflated response latencies for the control subjects, but had minimal effect on the performance of the split-brain patient. Third, the consistency manipulation was underadditive with SOA for only the patient, suggesting a later bottleneck in processing following callosotomy than was observed for the control subjects. It is proposed that sectioning the corpus callosum eliminates interference resulting from competing stimulus response codes. Nonetheless, dual-task interference persists for the split-brain subject because a subcortical gate constrains when selected responses can be implemented.

Ivry, Richard B.↗