4.2 Article

Automatic inhibition of habitual response associated with a non-target object while performing goal-directed actions

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1747021820971921

关键词

Habitual response; affordance; response inhibition; behaviour control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that responses were slowed down and more erroneous when the handle position of the non-target was compatible with the responding hand. The response inhibition effect disappeared when there was a delay longer than 200 ms between the offset of the non-target and the onset of the target. The findings suggest that processes controlling habitual responses associated with affordance of a non-target utilize response inhibition mechanisms overlapping with those involved in behavioral control.
This study is devoted to investigating mechanisms that inhibit habituated response associated with affordance of a non-target while executing action directed to a target. In four experiments, a paradigm was used that required a rapid left- or right-hand response according to the direction of the target arrow presented simultaneously or in close temporal proximity to a non-target whose handle position afforded grasping with the left or right hand. In general, responding was decelerated and more erroneous when the handle position was compatible with the responding hand. This effect of response inhibition was removed when the delay between the non-target offset and target onset was longer than 200 ms, and reversed into response facilitation when the target onset was delayed for 400-600 ms. The study suggests that processes that control withholding habitual response associated with affordance of a non-target utilise response inhibition mechanisms overlapping with those involved in behavioural control of the stop-signal task. This response inhibition is triggered automatically and directly by affordance of a non-target without preceding response excitation associated with this affordance cue.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据