Evidence for Psychological Refractory Effect in Motor Inhibition for a Dual-Response Go/No-Go Task

Abstract

Human subjects exhibit difficulty in initiating two independent, discrete responses in close succession, a difficulty known as the ‘psychological refractory effect.’ It is not yet known whether motor-inhibition processes are under the influence of this effect, as are motor-execution processes. This study examined the temporal changes of subjects' reaction times, interpreted in terms of motor programming for inhibition, in a dual-response Go/No-Go task that required two independent responses in close succession Light subjects performed the task with both a shorter (400 msec.) and a longer interstunulus interval (800 msec). The mean reaction time for the second stimulus (RT₂) in the Go response of the 400-msec. condition was significantly longer than that of the 800-msec. condition. For committed error responses during the No-Go trials, the mean RT₂ in the 400-msec. condition was longer than that in the 800-msec. condition. The total number of these errors in the 400-msec. condition was significantly greater than that in the 800-msec. condition. These results suggested that both the motor-execution processes and motor-inhibition processes were influenced by the psychological refractory effect.

References

De Jong

(1993) Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 19, 965–980.

De Jong

Coles

M. G. H.

Logan

G. D.

, & Gratton

(1990) In search of the point of no return: the control of response processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 16, 164–182.

Gottsdanker

(1979) A psychological refractory period or a prepared period? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 5, 208–215.

Logan

G. D.

, & Burkell

(1986) Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: a comparison of stop change, and dual-task paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 12, 549–563.

Logan

G. D.

, & Cowan

W. B.

(1984) On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295–327.

Logan

G. D.

Cowan

W. B.

, & Davis

K. A.

(1984) On the ability to inhibit simple and choice reaction time response: a model and a method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 10, 276–291.

Naito

, & Matsumura

(1994a) Movement-related slow potentials during motor imagery and movement suppression in humans. Cognitive Brain Research, 2, 131–137.

Naito

, & Matsumura

(1994b) Movement-related potentials associated with motor inhibition as determined by use of a stop signal paradigm in humans. Cognitive Brain Research, 2, 139–146.

Naito

, & Matsumura

(1996) Movement-related potentials associated with motor inhibition under different preparatory states during performance of two visual stop signal paradigms in humans. Neuropsychology, 34, 565–573.

10.

Osman

Kornblum

, & Meyer

D. E.

(1986) The point of no return in choice reaction time: controlled and ballistic stages of response preparation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 12, 243–258.

11.

Pashler

(1984) Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception Performance, 10, 358–377.

12.

Smith

M. C.

(1967) Theories of the psychological refractory period. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 202–213.