Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:13:49.796Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dissociation of perceptual and motor inhibition processes through the use of novel computerized conflict tasks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2003

Nassauer Katharine W.  and
Halperin Jeffrey M.
Nassauer Katharine W.
Affiliation:
Neuropsychology Doctoral Subprogram, Department of Psychology, The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York, New York, NY
Halperin Jeffrey M.*
Affiliation:
Neuropsychology Doctoral Subprogram, Department of Psychology, The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York, New York, NY Department of Psychology, Queens College of the City University of New York, Flushing, NY
*
Reprint requests to: Jeffrey M. Halperin, Ph.D., Dept. of Psychology, Queens College, CUNY, 65-30 Kissena Blvd., NSB-E318, Flushing, NY 11367. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Efficient behavioral functioning requires early perceptual inhibition of irrelevant stimuli and later motor inhibition of inappropriate responses. The Perceptual and Motor Conflict Tasks were developed to differentially assess perceptual and motor inhibition, and to determine whether these processes utilize separate or shared cognitive resources. The computerized tasks include six subtests involving a box or an arrow appearing in various locations. Subjects respond by pressing a key on the left or right side of a keyboard. In different subtests, arrow direction or stimulus location determines correct responses. Perceptual inhibition assessment requires the subject to respond to a conflicting arrow direction while ignoring stimulus location. Motor inhibition assessment involves the subject responding in the direction opposite to that indicated by a centrally located arrow. In a neurologically normal sample (N = 44), reaction time analyses yielded significant Perceptual and Motor Conflict main effects, with slower performance under conflict conditions, but no significant Perceptual × Motor interaction. The lack of a significant Perceptual × Motor interaction, according to the additive factor model, indicates that these two processes utilize distinct cognitive resources. Nevertheless, performance on the two conflict tasks was significantly correlated with each other, and Perceptual Conflict performance was significantly correlated with Stroop interference. (JINS, 2003, 9, 25–30.)

Keywords

ConflictInhibitory controlMotor inhibitionPerceptual inhibition
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 25 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Awh, E. & Gehring, W.J. (1999). The anterior cingulate cortex lends a hand in response selection. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 853–854.10.1038/13145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahri, T. & Bendania, A. (1997). Effect of language dominance on cognitive processes in a Stroop task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 979–988.10.2466/pms.1997.84.3.979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldo, J.V., Shimamura, A.P., & Prinzmetal, W. (1998). Mapping symbols to response modalities: Interference effects on Stroop-like tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 427–437.10.3758/BF03206864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkley, R.A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition and self control. In ADHD and the nature of self-control (pp. 65–82). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Doehrman, S., Landau, R., & O'Connell, D. (1978). The Stroop phenomenon: Perceptual conflict or response competition? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 1127–1131.10.2466/pms.1978.47.3f.1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, F.N. (1973). The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual cognitive and response processes. Memory and Cognition, 1, 106–120.10.3758/BF03198078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, W.R. & Dolt, M.O. (1977). A functional model to localize the conflict underlying the Stroop phenomenon. Psychological Research, 39, 287–310.10.1007/BF00308930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, M.O. & Glaser, W.R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 875–894.Google Scholar
Golden, J.C. (1978). Stroop Color and Word Test. Chicago, Ill: Stoelting.Google Scholar
Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T., & Valenstein, E. (1993). Neglect and related disorders. In K. Heilman & E. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology (3rd ed., pp. 279–336). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morton, J. (1969). Categories of interference: Verbal mediation and conflict in card sorting. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 329–346.10.1111/j.2044-8295.1969.tb01204.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary, M.J. & Barber, P.J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 830–844.Google Scholar
Palef, S.R. & Olson, D.R. (1975). Spatial and verbal rivalry and a Stroop-like task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 29, 201–209.10.1037/h0082026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pardo, J.V., Pardo, P.J., Janer, K.W., & Raichle, M.E. (1990). The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 87, 256–259.10.1073/pnas.87.1.256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, B.S., Skudlarski, P., Gatenby, J.C., Zhang, H., Anderson, A.W., & Gore, J.C. (1999). An fMRI study of Stroop Word-Color interference: Evidence for cingulate subregions subserving multiple distributed attentional systems. Society of Biological Psychiatry, 45, 1237–1258.10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00056-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridderinkhof, K.R. & van der Molen, M.W. (1995). When global information and local information collide: A brain potential analysis of the locus of interference effects. Biological Psychology, 41, 29–53.10.1016/0301-0511(95)05125-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sergeant, J. (1996). A theory of attention: An information processing perspective. In G.R. Lyon & N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 57–69). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Sternberg, S. (1969). Discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. In W. G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and performance II (pp. 276–315). Amsterdam: Holland.Google Scholar
Stirling, N. (1979). Stroop interference: An input and an output phenomenon. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 121–132.10.1080/14640747908400712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.10.1037/h0054651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virzi, R.A. & Egeth, H.E. (1985). Toward a translational model of Stroop interference. Memory and Cognition, 13, 304–319.10.3758/BF03202499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 386–432.10.1006/cogp.1998.0703CrossRefGoogle Scholar