Exploring the Impact of Stimulus-stimulus and Stimulus-response Conflicts on Computer Mouse Trajectories: Continuous Flow of Information from Stimulus Encoding to Response Preparation to Motor Action

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2023 Jun 1

PMID 37261534

Authors

Hayley Tseng

Markus F Damian

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In recent years, mouse tracking (designing experiments in which participants provide responses via dynamic computer mouse movements) has enjoyed increasing experience in experimental psychology. Mouse-tracking studies typically involve some form of stimulus-response (S-R) conflict, and S-R effects emerge in movement trajectories (as well as in latencies). By contrast, it is currently unclear how stimulus-stimulus (S-S) compatibility affects movements. Here, we used a spatial arrow task which allowed us to generate S-R and S-S effects within the same experiment. Experiment 1 clarified in a key press experiment that this manipulation generates clear S-S and S-R effects in latencies. More critically, Experiment 2 demonstrated that both types of conflict impact mouse trajectories with incompatibility emerging as increased 'curvature' of responses when compared to congruent responses. We argue that these results are best explained via the assumption of 'continuous flow' of information, from stimulus encoding to response preparation and finally into motor action. By contrast, the S-S effect on trajectories contradicts the notion that processing is 'thresholded' between stimulus encoding and response preparation.

References

Anwyl-Irvine A, Massonnie J, Flitton A, Kirkham N, Evershed J . Gorilla in our midst: An online behavioral experiment builder. Behav Res Methods. 2019; 52(1):388-407. PMC: 7005094. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01237-x. View

Buc Calderon C, Verguts T, Gevers W . Losing the boundary: Cognition biases action well after action selection. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015; 144(4):737-43. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000087. View

Buc Calderon C, Gevers W, Verguts T . The unfolding action model of initiation times, movement times, and movement paths. Psychol Rev. 2018; 125(5):785-805. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000110. View

Egner T . Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008; 12(10):374-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.001. View

Erb C, Marcovitch S . Deconstructing the Gratton effect: Targeting dissociable trial sequence effects in children, pre-adolescents, and adults. Cognition. 2018; 179:150-162. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.007. View

Erb C, Moher J, Sobel D, Song J . Reach tracking reveals dissociable processes underlying cognitive control. Cognition. 2016; 152:114-126. PMC: 4868089. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.015. View

Freeman J, Ambady N . MouseTracker: software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behav Res Methods. 2010; 42(1):226-41. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.226. View

Freeman J, Dale R, Farmer T . Hand in motion reveals mind in motion. Front Psychol. 2011; 2:59. PMC: 3110497. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00059. View

Funes M, Lupianez J, Humphreys G . Sustained vs. transient cognitive control: evidence of a behavioral dissociation. Cognition. 2009; 114(3):338-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.007. View

10.

Hommel B . The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010; 136(2):189-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011. View

11.

Kornblum S . The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: the case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychol Res. 1994; 56(3):130-5. DOI: 10.1007/BF00419699. View

12.

Meier M, Kane M . Carving executive control at its joints: Working memory capacity predicts stimulus-stimulus, but not stimulus-response, conflict. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015; 41(6):1849-72. PMC: 4630123. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000147. View

13.

Ratcliff R, Smith P, Brown S, McKoon G . Diffusion Decision Model: Current Issues and History. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016; 20(4):260-281. PMC: 4928591. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007. View

14.

Roelofs A . Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychol Rev. 2003; 110(1):88-125. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.88. View

15.

Scherbaum S, Dshemuchadse M, Fischer R, Goschke T . How decisions evolve: the temporal dynamics of action selection. Cognition. 2010; 115(3):407-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.02.004. View

16.

Schmidt J, Crump M, Cheesman J, Besner D . Contingency learning without awareness: evidence for implicit control. Conscious Cogn. 2006; 16(2):421-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2006.06.010. View

17.

Simon J, Rudell A . Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. J Appl Psychol. 1967; 51(3):300-4. DOI: 10.1037/h0020586. View

18.

Song J, Nakayama K . Target selection in visual search as revealed by movement trajectories. Vision Res. 2008; 48(7):853-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.12.015. View

19.

Wang K, Li Q, Zheng Y, Wang H, Liu X . Temporal and spectral profiles of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflict processing. Neuroimage. 2013; 89:280-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.045. View

20.

Wirth R, Foerster A, Kunde W, Pfister R . Design choices: Empirical recommendations for designing two-dimensional finger-tracking experiments. Behav Res Methods. 2020; 52(6):2394-2416. PMC: 7725755. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-020-01409-0. View