The accessory stimulus effect is mediated by phasic arousal: A pupillometry study

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (7) ◽  
pp. 1108-1113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klodiana-Daphne Tona ◽  
Peter. R. Murphy ◽  
Stephen B.R.E. Brown ◽  
Sander Nieuwenhuis
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Effect ◽  
Accessory Stimulus

ERP Approaches to the Accessory Stimulus Effect

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guido P. H. Band ◽  
Ellen 't Hart ◽  
Marieke Jepma ◽  
Sander Nieuwenhuis
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Effect ◽  
Accessory Stimulus

scholarly journals The Effects of Accessory Stimuli on Information Processing: Evidence from Electrophysiology and a Diffusion Model Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 847-864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marieke Jepma ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers ◽  
Guido P. H. Band ◽  
Sander Nieuwenhuis
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Diffusion Model ◽  
Model Analysis ◽  
Energy Integration ◽  
Motor Execution ◽  
Stimulus Effect ◽  
Analysis Experiment ◽  
Readiness Potentials ◽  
Accessory Stimulus ◽  
Task Irrelevant

People typically respond faster to a stimulus when it is accompanied by a task-irrelevant accessory stimulus presented in another perceptual modality. However, the mechanisms responsible for this accessory-stimulus effect are still poorly understood. We examined the effects of auditory accessory stimulation on the processing of visual stimuli using scalp electrophysiology (Experiment 1) and a diffusion model analysis (Experiment 2). In accordance with previous studies, lateralized readiness potentials indicated that accessory stimuli do not speed motor execution. Surface Laplacians over the motor cortex, however, revealed a bihemispheric increase in motor activation—an effect predicted by nonspecific arousal models. The diffusion model analysis suggested that accessory stimuli do not affect parameters of the decision process, but expedite only the nondecision component of information processing. Consequently, we conclude that accessory stimuli facilitate stimulus encoding. The visual P1 and N1 amplitudes on accessory-stimulus trials were modulated in a way that is consistent with multisensory energy integration, a possible mechanism for this facilitation.

The Locus of the Accessory Stimulus Effect: A Diffusion Model Account

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marieke Jepma ◽  
Eric-Jan Wagenmakers ◽  
Sander Nieuwenhuis
Keyword(s):  
Diffusion Model ◽  
Stimulus Effect ◽  
Model Account ◽  
Accessory Stimulus

DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS EFFECT OF THE SERENIC ELTOPRAZINE

1992 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 39
Author(s):  
C E YBEMA ◽  
B OLIVIER ◽  
J MOS ◽  
J L SLANGEN
Keyword(s):  
Discriminative Stimulus ◽  
Discriminative Stimulus Effect ◽  
Stimulus Effect

Flanker and Simon effects interact at the response selection stage

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (9) ◽  
pp. 1784-1804 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Treccani ◽  
Roberto Cubelli ◽  
Sergio Della Sala ◽  
Carlo Umiltà
Keyword(s):  
Response Selection ◽  
Flanker Task ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Correspondence Effects ◽  
Correspondence Effect ◽  
Accessory Stimulus ◽  
Target Set ◽  
Referential Coding ◽  
Selection Stage ◽  
Effect Experiment

The present study aimed at investigating the processing stage underlying stimulus–stimulus (S–S) congruency effects by examining the relation of a particular type of congruency effect (i.e., the flanker effect) with a stimulus–response (S–R) spatial correspondence effect (i.e., the Simon effect). Experiment 1 used a unilateral flanker task in which the flanker also acted as a Simon-like accessory stimulus. Results showed a significant S–S Congruency × S–R Correspondence interaction: An advantage for flanker–response spatially corresponding trials was observed in target–flanker congruent conditions, whereas, in incongruent conditions, there was a noncorresponding trials’ advantage. The analysis of the temporal trend of the correspondence effects ruled out a temporal-overlap account for the observed interaction. Moreover, results of Experiment 2, in which the flanker did not belong to the target set, demonstrated that this interaction cannot be attributed to perceptual grouping of the target–flanker pairs and referential coding of the target with respect to the flanker in the congruent and incongruent conditions, respectively. Taken together, these findings are consistent with a response selection account of congruency effects: Both the position and the task-related attribute of the flanker would activate the associated responses. In noncorresponding-congruent trials and corresponding-incongruent trials, this would cause a conflict at the response selection stage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document