4.1 Article

Moderate variability in stimulus presentation improves motor response control

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/13803390802272036

Keywords

Inhibitory control; Response preparation; Intrasubject variability; Supplementary motor area; Go; no-go; Attention

Funding

  1. Institutes of Health (NIH) [K02 NS044850, R01 NS047781, P30 HD24061]
  2. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P30HD024061] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH078160, R01MH085328] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS047781, K02NS044850] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To examine the impact of interstimulus jitter (i.e., randomization of the interval between successive stimulus events) on response control during continuous task performance, 41 healthy adults completed four go/no-go tasks that were identical except for interstimulus interval (ISI) jitter: a 0% jitter task with a fixed (1,000-ms) ISI, a 10% jitter task with an ISI range of 900-1,100 ms, a 30% jitter task with an ISI range of 700-1,300 ms, and a 50% jitter task with an ISI range of 500-1,500 ms. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a quadratic effect of jitter on commissions across the group and on intrasubject reaction time variability in men; in both cases, performance was best for the 10% jitter condition. A linear effect of jitter was observed for reaction time (RT) with high levels of jitter (50%) resulting in longer RT. Findings suggest that response selection, including inhibition, is optimized by moderate increases in ISI jitter. More deliberate and controlled responding observed with increasing jitter may have important treatment implications for disorders (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, ADHD), associated with impaired response control.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available