How the Brain Process Stimulus-Response Conflict? New Insights from Lateralized Readiness Potentials Scalp Topography and Reaction Times

Marc E. Lavoie, Johannes E. A. Stauder

Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Laboratoire de Psychophysiologie Cognitive et Sociale.

DOI: 10.4236/jbbs.2013.31014                

Abstract

Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) refers to the fact that some tasks are performed easier and better than others because of the way stimuli and responses are paired with each other. To assess the brain responses to stimulus-response conflicts, we investigated the behavioral (accuracy and Reaction Times: RTs) as well as the physiological response (Lateralized Readiness Potentials: LRP) modulations in a positional blocked and a conditional mixed design in twelve university students. Results revealed that the performance was less accurate and the RTs, as well as the LRP onset, were delayed under the mixed conditional design. A greater compatibility effect was also noted on accuracy, RTs and LRP onset latency in the mixed design. Consistent with these findings, smaller peak activation at fronto-central areas suggests that more selective inhibition is needed in a mixed design context. Despite a smaller activation, the topographical distribution is similar in both designs. These results indicate that the translation time between stimulus- and response codes are greater under the mixed instruction, while the similar LRP topography suggests that common neural structures underlie LRPs in response to both type of designs.

Keywords

Lateralized Readiness Potentials; Mixed-Blocked Designs; Stimulus Response-Compatibility; Reaction Times

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	J. R. Simon, “The Effects of an Irrelevant Directional Cue on Human Information Processing,” In: R. W. Proctor, Ed., Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990, pp. 31-86.
[2]	P. M. Fitts and C. M. Seeger, “S-R Compatibility: Spatial Characteristics of Stimulus and Response Codes,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1953, pp. 199-210. doi:10.1037/h0062827
[3]	P. M. Fitts and R. L. Deininger, “S-R Compatibility: Correspondence among Paired Elements within Stimulus and Response Codes,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 6, 1954, pp. 483-492. doi:10.1037/h0054967
[4]	B. Hommel, “Attention and Spatial Stimulus Coding in the Simon Task: A Rejoinder to Van der Lubbe and Abrahamse,” Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), Vol. 136, No. 2, 2011, pp. 265-268. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.10.002
[5]	C. D. Wickens, M. Vidulich and D. Sandry-Garza, “Principles of S-C-R Compatibility with Spatial and Verbal Tasks: The Role of Display-Control Location and VoiceInteractive Display-Control Interfacing,” Human Factors, Vol. 26, No. 5, 1984, pp. 533-543.
[6]	S. Kornblum, T. Hasbroucq and A. Osman, “Dimensional Overlap: Cognitive Basis for Stimulus-Response Compatibility—A Model and Taxonomy,” Psychological Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, 1990, pp. 253-270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253
[7]	J. Olesen, “Contralateral Focal Increase of Cerebral Blood Flow in Man during Arm Work,” Brain, Vol. 94, No. 4, 1971, pp. 635-646. doi:10.1093/brain/94.4.635
[8]	P. Remy, et al., “Movementand Task-Related Activations of Motor Cortical Areas: A Positron Emission Tomographic Study,” Annals of Neurology, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1994, pp. 19-26. doi:10.1002/ana.410360107
[9]	C. D. Frith, et al., “Willed Action and the Prefrontal Cortex in Man: A Study with PET,” Proceedings of Biological sciences, Vol. 244, No. 1311, 1991, pp. 241-246. doi:10.1098/rspb.1991.0077
[10]	M. P. Deiber, et al., “Cortical Areas and the Selection of Movement: A Study with Positron Emission Tomography,” Experimental Brain Research, Vol. 84, No. 2, 1991, pp. 393-402. doi:10.1007/BF00231461
[11]	T. Paus, et al., “Role of the Human Anterior Cingulate Cortex in the Control of Oculomotor, Manual, and Speech Responses: A Positron Emission Tomography Study,” Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 70, No. 2, 1993, pp. 453469.
[12]	B. S. Peterson, et al., “An Event-Related Functional MRI Study Comparing Interference Effects in the Simon and Stroop Tasks,” Cognitive Brain Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002, pp. 427-440. doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00054-X
[13]	M. G. Coles, “Modern Mind-Brain Reading: Psychophysiology, Physiology, and Cognition,” Psychophysiology, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1989, pp. 251-269. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1989.tb01916.x
[14]	K. M. Spencer and M. G. Coles, “The Lateralized Readiness Potential: Relationship between Human Data and Response Activation in a Connectionist Model,” Psychophysiology, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1999, pp. 364-370. doi:10.1017/S0048577299970749
[15]	M. Eimer, “Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Automatic Response Activation: Evidence from Psychophysiological Studies,” Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception & performance, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1995, pp. 837-854. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.837
[16]	J. C. Woestenburg, M. N. Verbaten and J. L. Slangen, “The Removal of the Eye-Movement Artifact from the EEG by Regression Analysis in the Frequency Domain,” Biological Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 1-2, 1983, pp. 127147. doi:10.1016/0301-0511(83)90059-5
[17]	R. de Jong, “Perception-Action Coupling and S-R Compatibility,” Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), Vol. 90, No. 1-3, 1995, pp. 287-299. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(95)00036-T
[18]	J. Miller, A. Riehle and J. Requin, “Effects of Preliminary Perceptual Output on Neuronal Activity of the Primary Motor Cortex,” Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception & performance, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1992, pp. 1121-1138. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1121
[19]	A. P. Georgopoulos, et al., “Mental Rotation of the Neuronal Population Vector,” Science, Vol. 243, No. 4888, 1989, pp. 234-236. doi:10.1126/science.2911737
[20]	R. W. Proctor, et al., “Dissociation of S-R Compatibility and Simon Effects with Mixed Tasks and Mappings,” Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception & performance, 2012. doi:10.1037/a0029923
[21]	R. W. Proctor and K. P. Vu, “Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Mixed Mappings and Tasks with Unique Responses,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 2, 2010, pp. 320-340. doi:10.1080/17470210902925270
[22]	M. Tagliabue, et al., “The Role of Long-Term Memory and Short-Term Memory Links in the Simon Effect,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2000, pp. 648-670. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.2.648
[23]	H. Leuthold, “The Simon Effect in Cognitive Electrophysiology: A Short Review,” Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), Vol. 136, No. 2, 2011, pp. 203-211. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.001