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.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

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.