Reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations

This dissertation examines the impact of stimulus and response similarity on response selection. Traditional models of response selection invoke a central processor that operates like a look-up table by matching the perceptually classified stimulus (e.g., green square) to the specified response (e.g...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Wifall, Timothy Curtis
Other Authors: Hazeltine, Eliot
Format: Others
Language:English
Published: University of Iowa 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1418
https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5457&context=etd
id ndltd-uiowa.edu-oai-ir.uiowa.edu-etd-5457
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-uiowa.edu-oai-ir.uiowa.edu-etd-54572019-10-13T04:51:59Z Reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations Wifall, Timothy Curtis This dissertation examines the impact of stimulus and response similarity on response selection. Traditional models of response selection invoke a central processor that operates like a look-up table by matching the perceptually classified stimulus (e.g., green square) to the specified response (e.g., right button press). The look-up property of response selection affords the system the ability to map any stimulus onto any response, even if that stimulus-response has never been paired before. Under such an approach, the degree of perceptual similarity or dissimilarity that exists among stimuli in the environment should have little effect on central operations, the similarity or dissimilarity of the motor response executed in response to a stimulus should not influence response selection, and no interaction between stimulus and response features is permitted, given that stimulus features affect the encoding process, and response features affect the output process, but not response selection itself. Eight studies examine the influence of stimulus and response similarity during response selection. The first two experiments establish the interaction across different task demands between stimulus and response similarity. The interaction was not the result of perceptual difficulty (Experiment 3) and was extended to a new set of stimuli (Experiment 4). A consequence of the design in Experiments 1 - 4 was that response condition was confounded with response configuration. In one of the response conditions the target location had three competitors on one side of it compared to the other condition where the target had one competitor on one side and two others on the other side. Experiments 5 and 6 examined the separate roles that response configuration and response metrics had on the interaction between stimulus and response similarity. The mechanism that produced the interaction was the result of competition between partially activated stimulus-response alternatives. Experiments 7 and 8 further explored the role of competition during response selection by turning to traditional response selection methodologies that introduce competition through either the presentation of irrelevant stimulus information or through presenting the stimulus along an irrelevant spatial dimension. These data have broad implications for models of RS. To account for the ability to pair any stimulus modality with any response modality dominant accounts of RS assume that central operations are performed by a generic set of processes that operate over representations that are stripped of metric information (amodal representations). Response selection works as a look-up table that receives a categorized stimulus as an input and returns an abstract response code as output. This type of model cannot produce an interaction between stimulus and response similarity and thus, the present data provide a serious challenge to these types of models. Finally, the data provide evidence that the metric relationship between stimuli and response matter and influence response selection. The co-activation of stimulus-response alternatives are at a level of representation that includes both stimulus and response properties. A framework is presented that captures key aspects of the data. 2014-07-01T07:00:00Z dissertation application/pdf https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1418 https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5457&context=etd Copyright 2014 Timothy Curtis Wifall Theses and Dissertations eng University of IowaHazeltine, Eliot Computer mouse tracking Continuous models Discrete stage Response selection Similarity Stimulus and response similarity Psychology
collection NDLTD
language English
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Computer mouse tracking
Continuous models
Discrete stage
Response selection
Similarity
Stimulus and response similarity
Psychology
spellingShingle Computer mouse tracking
Continuous models
Discrete stage
Response selection
Similarity
Stimulus and response similarity
Psychology
Wifall, Timothy Curtis
Reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations
description This dissertation examines the impact of stimulus and response similarity on response selection. Traditional models of response selection invoke a central processor that operates like a look-up table by matching the perceptually classified stimulus (e.g., green square) to the specified response (e.g., right button press). The look-up property of response selection affords the system the ability to map any stimulus onto any response, even if that stimulus-response has never been paired before. Under such an approach, the degree of perceptual similarity or dissimilarity that exists among stimuli in the environment should have little effect on central operations, the similarity or dissimilarity of the motor response executed in response to a stimulus should not influence response selection, and no interaction between stimulus and response features is permitted, given that stimulus features affect the encoding process, and response features affect the output process, but not response selection itself. Eight studies examine the influence of stimulus and response similarity during response selection. The first two experiments establish the interaction across different task demands between stimulus and response similarity. The interaction was not the result of perceptual difficulty (Experiment 3) and was extended to a new set of stimuli (Experiment 4). A consequence of the design in Experiments 1 - 4 was that response condition was confounded with response configuration. In one of the response conditions the target location had three competitors on one side of it compared to the other condition where the target had one competitor on one side and two others on the other side. Experiments 5 and 6 examined the separate roles that response configuration and response metrics had on the interaction between stimulus and response similarity. The mechanism that produced the interaction was the result of competition between partially activated stimulus-response alternatives. Experiments 7 and 8 further explored the role of competition during response selection by turning to traditional response selection methodologies that introduce competition through either the presentation of irrelevant stimulus information or through presenting the stimulus along an irrelevant spatial dimension. These data have broad implications for models of RS. To account for the ability to pair any stimulus modality with any response modality dominant accounts of RS assume that central operations are performed by a generic set of processes that operate over representations that are stripped of metric information (amodal representations). Response selection works as a look-up table that receives a categorized stimulus as an input and returns an abstract response code as output. This type of model cannot produce an interaction between stimulus and response similarity and thus, the present data provide a serious challenge to these types of models. Finally, the data provide evidence that the metric relationship between stimuli and response matter and influence response selection. The co-activation of stimulus-response alternatives are at a level of representation that includes both stimulus and response properties. A framework is presented that captures key aspects of the data.
author2 Hazeltine, Eliot
author_facet Hazeltine, Eliot
Wifall, Timothy Curtis
author Wifall, Timothy Curtis
author_sort Wifall, Timothy Curtis
title Reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations
title_short Reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations
title_full Reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations
title_fullStr Reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations
title_full_unstemmed Reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations
title_sort reaching into response selection: stimulus and response similarity influence central operations
publisher University of Iowa
publishDate 2014
url https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1418
https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5457&context=etd
work_keys_str_mv AT wifalltimothycurtis reachingintoresponseselectionstimulusandresponsesimilarityinfluencecentraloperations
_version_ 1719265227579588608