» Articles » PMID: 21874548

Investigating the Modality Specificity of Response Selection Using a Temporal Flanker Task

Overview
Journal Psychol Res
Specialty Psychology
Date 2011 Aug 30
PMID 21874548
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The neurocognitive architecture for response selection is uncertain. Some theorists suggest that it is mediated by an amodal central mechanism, whereas others propose a set of independent control mechanisms. In a functional neuroimaging experiment, we investigated the nature of response selection by examining how its underlying brain mechanisms are affected by stimulus modality. To do this, we used a modified flanker task, in which the target and flanker (distractor) stimuli differed in time rather than space, making it accessible for both visual and auditory stimuli. As in the traditional flanker task, larger reaction times were observed for incongruent than congruent trials (i.e., a congruency effect) for both modalities. Congruency affected brain activation for both modalities in prefrontal cortex, parietal cortex, and the putamen. Modality-dependent activation was found in additional prefrontal and parietal regions for the visual modality and in left inferior prefrontal cortex for the auditory modality. Modality-dependent activity specifically related to response congruency was also found in sensory cortical regions. These data suggest that modality affects the brain regions throughout the cortex mediating response selection even for conceptually identical stimuli and tasks. They are consistent with the hypothesis that (at least partially) independent brain networks mediate response selection and that input modality may be a powerful factor for organizing neural activity to support task performance.

Citing Articles

Meta-analytic evidence for the complex mechanisms underlying congruency sequence effect.

Lee Y, Verhaeghen P, Hazeltine E, Schumacher E Psychol Res. 2025; 89(2):63.

PMID: 40047943 PMC: 11885397. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-025-02093-5.


A comment on the Revised Diffusion Model for Conflict tasks (RDMC).

Janczyk M, Mackenzie I, Koob V Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; .

PMID: 39448516 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02574-5.


Resisting Visual, Phonological, and Semantic Interference - Same or Different Processes? A Focused Mini-Review.

Gregoire C, Majerus S Psychol Belg. 2023; 62(1):44-63.

PMID: 37064504 PMC: 10103719. DOI: 10.5334/pb.1184.


Action errors impair active working memory maintenance.

Wessel J, Jiang J, Stolley J J Exp Psychol Gen. 2022; 151(6):1325-1340.

PMID: 35143251 PMC: 9237091. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001142.


Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: chances and challenges.

Dittrich K, Kellen D, Stahl C Psychol Res. 2014; 78(3):387-99.

PMID: 24627167 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0551-y.


References
1.
Ruthruff E, Pashler H, Klaassen A . Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: structural limitation or strategic postponement?. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001; 8(1):73-80. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196141. View

2.
Schubert T, Szameitat A . Functional neuroanatomy of interference in overlapping dual tasks: an fMRI study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003; 17(3):733-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0926-6410(03)00198-8. View

3.
Byrne M, ANDERSON J . Serial modules in parallel: the psychological refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(4):847-69. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.847. View

4.
Ruthruff E, Johnston J, Van Selst M, Whitsell S, Remington R . Vanishing dual-task interference after practice: has the bottleneck been eliminated or is it merely latent?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003; 29(2):280-9. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.280. View

5.
Dux P, Ivanoff J, Asplund C, Marois R . Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved FMRI. Neuron. 2006; 52(6):1109-20. PMC: 2527865. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.11.009. View