IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v391y1998i6669d10.1038_35849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automatic alerting does not speed late motoric processes in a reaction-time task

Author

Listed:
  • Steven A. Hackley

    (210 McAlester Hall, University of Missouri)

  • Fernando Valle-Inclán

    (Elviña Campus, University of La Coruña)

Abstract

When an irrelevant ‘accessory’ stimulus is presented at about the same time as the imperative signal in a choice reaction time-task, the latency of the voluntary response is markedly reduced1. The most prominent cognitive theories agree that this effect is attributable to a brief surge in arousal (‘automatic alerting’), but they disagree over whether the facilitation is localized to a late, low-level motoric process2 or to an earlier stage, the process of orienting to and then perceptually categorizing the reaction stimulus3,4. To test these alternative hypotheses, we used the onset of the lateralized readiness potential (a movement-related brain potential) as a temporal landmark to partition mean reaction time into two time segments. The first segment included the time required to perceive the visual stimulus and decide which hand to react with; the second included only motoric processes. Presentation of an irrelevant acoustic stimulus shortened the first interval but had no effect on the second. We therefore rejected the motoric hypothesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven A. Hackley & Fernando Valle-Inclán, 1998. "Automatic alerting does not speed late motoric processes in a reaction-time task," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6669), pages 786-788, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:391:y:1998:i:6669:d:10.1038_35849
    DOI: 10.1038/35849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/35849
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/35849?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:391:y:1998:i:6669:d:10.1038_35849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.