Event-Related Brain Potentials: Report Order and Task Switch on Multidimensional Stimuli Identification

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of order of reporting stimulus dimension in multidimensional stimulus identification using a switch-task paradigm. Participants were required to identify each two-dimensional symbol by pushing the corresponding buttons on the keypad on which there were two columns representing the two dimensions, part and shape. The two orders of report were Order Part/Shape and Order Shape/Part. There was a task cue prior to each presentation of a symbol indicating the particular report order the participants should perform. The cue changed randomly. Both behavioral data and event-related potentials were recorded from 12 college students. Analysis of behavioral data showed switch cost indicated by increase in response time was greater for Order Shape/Part, a less appropriate order of reporting dimensional values, than Order Part/Shape (88 msec. vs 9 msec. for response time for the first stimulus dimension; 96 msec. vs –1 msec. for response time total). Neural activities under Order Shape/Part and Order Part/Shape were different, and it seems plausible that participants put more effort into selection and showed more related semantic activation in Order Shape/Part than in Order Part/Shape which fits the Chinese adjective-then-noun language habit.

References

Allport

Styles

E. A.

Hsieh

(1994) Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In Umiltà

Moscovitch

(Eds.), Attention and performance: 15. Conscious and nonconscious information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp. 421–452.

Carswell

C. M.

Wickens

C. D.

(1996) Mixing and matching lower-level codes for object displays: Evidence for two sources of proximity compatibility. Human Factors, 28, 1–23.

Donchin

(1981) Surprise! …. surprise! Psychophysiology, 18, 493–513.

Duncan

(1984) Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.

Fisher

D. L.

Tanner

N. S.

(1992) Optimal symbol set selection: A semiautomated procedure. Human Factors, 34, 79–95.

Gilbert

S. J.

Shallice

(2002) Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337.

Glaser

W. R.

Glaser

M. O.

(1989) Context effect in Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.

Gratton

Coles

M. G. H.

Sirevaag

Eriksen

C. W.

Donchin

(1988) Pre- and post-stimulus activation of response channels: A psychophysiological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 331–344.

Harris

C. S.

Haber

R. N.

(1963) Selective attention and coding in visual perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 328–333.

10.

Harter

M. R.

Aine

C. J.

(1984) Brain mechanisms of visual selective attention. In Parasuraman

Davies

D. R.

(Eds.), Varieties of attention. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 293–321.

11.

Kutas

Hillyard

S. A.

(1980) Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.

12.

Luck

S. J.

(2005) Ten simple rules for designing ERP experiments. In Handy

T. C.

(Ed.), Event-related potentials: A methods handbook. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp. 17–32.

13.

Mangun

G. R.

Hillyard

S. A.

Luck

S. J.

(1993) Electrocortical substrates of visual selective attention. In Meyer

Kornblum

(Eds.), Attention and performance XIV. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 219–243.

14.

McClain

(1983) Stimulus-response compatibility affects auditory Stroop interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 266–270.

15.

Meiran

(1996) Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.

16.

Meuter

R. F. I.

Allport

(1999) Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.

17.

Monsell

Yeung

Azuma

(2000) Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research, 63, 250–264.

18.

Näätänen

Picton

(1987) The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology, 24, 375–425.

19.

Osga

(1982) An evaluation of identification performance for Raster Scan generated NTDS symbology. (Final Report) San Diego, CA: Naval Ocean System Center.

20.

Picton

T. W.

Campbell

K. B.

Baribeau-Braun

Proulx

G. B.

(1978) The neurophysiology of human attention: A tutorial review. In Requin

(Ed.), Attention and performance VII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 429–467.

21.

Rogers

R. D.

Monsell

(1995) Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.

22.

Shieh

K-K.

Chen

F-F.

(2002) Effects of report order and stimulus type on multidimensional stimulus identification. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 783–794.

23.

Shieh

K-K.

Lai

C-J.

(1996) Effects of practice on the identification of multidimensional stimulus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 435–448.

24.

Shieh

K-K.

Lai

C-J.

(1997) Multidimensional stimulus identification: Instructing subjects in the order of reporting stimulus dimensions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 995–1008.

25.

Shieh

K-K.

Lai

C-J.

Ellingstad

V. S.

(1996) Effects of report order, identification method, and stimulus characteristics on multidimensional stimulus identification. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 99–111.

26.

Shieh

K-K.

Shen

I-H.

(2004) Report order and identification of multidimensional stimuli: A study of event-related brain potentials. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 1427–1437.

27.

Tsang

P. S.

Bates

W. E.

(1990) Resource of allocation and object displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society. Pp. 1484–1488.

28.

Van Petten

Kutas

(1987) Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 188–208.

29.

Vogel

E. K.

Luck

S. J.

(2000) The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. Psychophysiology, 37, 190–203.

30.

Wickens

C. D.

Andre

A. D.

(1990) Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space, and objectness on information integration. Human Factors, 32, 61–77.

31.

Wickens

C. D.

Carswell

C. M.

(1995) The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473–494.