Literature DB >> 25919668

A startling acoustic stimulus interferes with upcoming motor preparation: Evidence for a startle refractory period.

Dana Maslovat1, Romeo Chua2, Anthony N Carlsen3, Curtis May2, Christopher J Forgaard2, Ian M Franks2.   

Abstract

When a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS) is presented in a simple reaction time (RT) task, response latency is significantly shortened. The present study used a SAS in a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm to determine if a shortened RT1 latency would be propagated to RT2. Participants performed a simple RT task with an auditory stimulus (S1) requiring a vocal response (R1), followed by a visual stimulus (S2) requiring a key-lift response (R2). The two stimuli were separated by a variable stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and a typical PRP effect was found. When S1 was replaced with a 124dB SAS, R1 onset was decreased by 40-50ms; however, rather than the predicted propagation of a shortened RT, significantly longer responses were found for RT2 on startle trials at short SOAs. Furthermore, the 100ms SOA condition exhibited reduced peak EMG for R2 on startle trials, as compared to non-startle trials. These results are attributed to the startling stimulus temporarily interfering with cognitive processing, delaying and altering the execution of the second response. In addition to this "startle refractory period," results also indicated that RT1 latencies were significantly lengthened for trials that immediately followed a startle trial, providing evidence for longer-term effects of the startling stimulus.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dual-task performance; Psychological refractory period; Response preparation; Startle reflex

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25919668     DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)        ISSN: 0001-6918


  3 in total

Review 1.  The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection.

Authors:  Stuart T Klapp; Dana Maslovat; Richard J Jagacinski
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-02

2.  Investigation of timing preparation during response initiation and execution using a startling acoustic stimulus.

Authors:  Dana Maslovat; Romeo Chua; Ian M Franks
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-09-10       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Response preparation and execution during intentional bimanual pattern switching.

Authors:  Dana Maslovat; Michael J Carter; Anthony N Carlsen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 2.714

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.