Low-level motor inhibition in children: Evidence from the negative compatibility effect

• Authors: Friederike Schlaghecken , Ruth Sisman

Abstracts

EN

The masked prime task was used to investigate low-level inhibitory motor control processes in two groups of children (7-8 years and 11-12 years) and in older adolescents/young adults (16-23 years). Masked prime stimuli, presented below the level of conscious awareness, systematically affected reaction times (RTs) to subsequent supraliminal target stimuli: RTs were longer when prime and target were mapped to the same response than when they were mapped to different responses. This negative compatibility effect did not differ significantly between age groups, consistent with the hypothesis that the underlying low-level inhibition processes are already fully developed in children as young as seven years of age. In contrast, performance differences between response repetition and response alternation trials were significantly larger in children, consistent with the hypothesis that higher-level control processes are less effective in children. Results provide converging evidence that whereas the latter processes are mediated by late-maturing (prefrontal cortical) areas, the former processes are mediated by earlier-maturing (possibly subcortical) structures.

Keywords

EN

Masked priming; inhibition; development

• Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie
• Journal: Advances in Cognitive Psychology
• Year: 2006
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 7-19

Contributors

author

Friederike Schlaghecken

• Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

author

Ruth Sisman

• Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

References

• Allport, A., Tipper, S., & Chmiel, N. R. J. (1985). Perceptual integration and postcategorical filtering. In M. I. Posner (Ed.),Attention and Performance XI(pp. 107-132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Ansorge, U., Heumann, M., & Scharlau, I. (2002). Influences of visibility, intentions, and probability in a peripheral cueing task.Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 528-545.
• Arbuthnott, K. D. (1995). Inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Phenomena and models.Current Psychology of Cognition, 14, 3-45.
• Aron, A., Schlaghecken, F., Fletcher, P., Bullmore, E., Eimer, M., Barker, R., Sahakian, B., & Robbins, T. (2003). Inhibition of subliminally primed responses is mediated by the caudate and thalamus: Evidence from fMRI and Huntington's disease.Brain, 126, 713-723.
• Band, G. P., & van Boxtel G. J. (1999). Inhibitory motor control in stop paradigms: Review and reinterpretation of neural mechanisms.Acta Psychologica, 101, 179-211.
• Bowman, H., Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (in press). A neural network model of inhibitory processes in subliminal priming.Visual Cognition.
• Breitmeyer, B.G., & Ganz, L. (1976). Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing.Psychological Review, 87, 1-36.
• Brocki, K. C., & Bohlin, G. (2004). Executive functions in children aged 6 to 13: A dimensional and developmental study.Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 571-593.
• Casey, B. J., Durston, S., & Fossella, J. A. (2001). Evidence for a mechanistic model of cognitive control.Clinical Neuroscience Research, 1, 267-282.
• Cepeda, N. J., Kramer, A. F., & Gonzales de Sather, J. C. M. (2001). Changes in executive control across the life span: Examination of task-switching performance.Developmental Psychology, 37, 715-730.
• Clohessy, A. B., Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., & Vecera, S. P. (1991). The development of inhibition of return in early infancy.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 345-350.
• Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec'H, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., van de Moortele, P. F., & Le Bihan, D. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming.Nature, 395, 597-600.
• Delord, S. (1998). Which mask is the most efficient: A pattern or a noise? It depends on the task.Visual Cognition, 5, 313-338.
• Dempster, F. N. (1992). The rise and fall of the inhibitory mechanism: Toward a unified theory of cognitive development and aging.Developmental Review, 12, 45-75.
• Eimer, M. (1999). Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of masked prime stimuli on motor activation and behavioral performance.Acta Psychologica, 101, 293-313.
• Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737-1747.
• Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2001). Response facilitation and inhibition in manual, vocal, and oculomotor performance: Evidence for a modality-unspecific mechanism.Journal of Motor Behaviour, 33, 16-26.
• Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2002). Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: Evidence from masked priming.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 514-520.
• Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2003). Response facilitation and inhibition in subliminal priming.Biological Psychology, 64, 7-26.
• Eimer, M., Schubö, A., & Schlaghecken, F. (2002). The locus of inhibition in the masked priming of response alternatives.Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 3-10
• Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2000). What's new in visual masking?Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 345-352.
• Enns, J. T., & Girgus, J. S. (1985). Developmental changes in selective and integrative visual attention.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 319-337.
• Faw, B. (2003). Pre-frontal executive committee for perception, working memory, attention, long-term memory, motor control, and thinking: A tutorial review.Consciousness & Cognition, 12, 83-139.
• Harnishfeger, K. K., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1994). A developmental perspective on individual differences in inhibition.Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 331-355.
• Heyder, K., Suchan, B., & Daum, I. (2004). Cortico-subcortical contributions to executive control.Acta Psychologica, 115, 271-289.
• Hübner, R., & Druey, M. (in press). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting?Psychological Research.
• Kelly, A. M. C., Hester, R., Murphy, K., Javitt, D. C., Foxe J. J., & Garavan, H. (2004). Prefrontal-subcortical dissociations underlying inhibitory control revealed by event-related fMRI.European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 3105-3112.
• Klapp, S. T. (2005). Two versions of the negative compatibility effect: A reply to Lleras and Enns (2004).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 431-435.
• Klapp, S. T., & Haas, B. W. (2005). The non-conscious influence of masked stimuli on response selection is limited to concrete stimulus-response associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 193-209.
• Klapp, S. T., & Hinkley, L. B. (2002). The negative compatibility effect: Unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 255-269.
• Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138-147.
• Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs.Acta Psychologica, 103, 296-310.
• Konishi, S., Nakajima, K., Uchida, I., Sekihara, K., & Miyashita, Y. (1998). No-go dominant brain activity in human inferior prefrontal cortex revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging.European Journal of Neuroscience, 10, 1209-1213.
• Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition.Cognition, 88, 223-242.
• Leon-Carrion, J., Garcia-Orza, J., & Perez-Santamaria, F. J. (2004). Development of the inhibitory component of the executive functions in children and adolescents.International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 1291-1311.
• Leuthold, H., & Kopp, B. (1998). Mechanisms of priming by masked stimuli: Inferences from event-related brain potentials.Psychological Science, 9, 263-269.
• Lleras, A., & Enns, J. T. (2004). Negative compatibility or object updating? A cautionary tale of mask-dependent priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 475-493.
• MacPherson, A. C., Klein, R. M., & Moore, C. (2003). Inhibition of return in children and adolescents.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85,337-351.
• Marcel, T. (1980). Conscious and preconcscious recognition of polysemous words: Locating the selective effects of prior verbal context. In R. S. Nickersen (Ed.),Attention and Performance VIII(pp. 435-457). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Maylor, E. A. (1985). Facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.),Mechanisms of Attention: Attention and Performance XI(pp. 189-204). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
• McCormick, P. A. (1997). Orienting attention without awareness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 168-180.
• Menon, V., Adleman, N. E., White, C. D., Glover, G. H., & Reiss, A. L. (2001). Error-related brain activation during a Go/NoGo response inhibition task.Human Brain Mapping, 12, 131-143.
• Merikle, P. M., Joordens, S., & Stolz, J. (1995). Measuring the relative magnitude of unconscious influences.Consciousness and Cognition, 4, 422-439.
• Mukherjee, P., Miller, J. H., Shimoney, J. S., Philip, J. V., Nehra, D., Snyder, A. Z., Conturo, T. E., Neil, J. J., & McKinstry, R. C. (2002). Diffusion-tensor MR imaging of gray and white matter developing during normal human brain maturation.American Journal of Neuroradiology, 23, 1445-1456.
• Neill, W. T., Valdes., L. A., & Terry, K. M. (1995). Selective attention and the inhibitory control of cognition. In F. N. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),Interference and Inhibition in Cognition(pp. 207-261). San Diego: Academic Press.
• Neumann, O., & Klotz, W. (1994). Motor responses to nonreportable, masked stimuli: Where is the limit of direct parameter specification? In C. Umiltà & M. Moskovitch (Eds.),Attention and Performance XV(pp. 123-150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Pisella, L., Grea, H., Tilikete, C., Vighetto, A., Desmurget, M., Rode, G., Boisson, D., & Rossetti, Y. (2000). An ‘automatic pilot’ for the hand in human posterior parietal cortex: Toward reinterpreting optic ataxia.Nature Neuroscience, 3, 729-736.
• Plude, D. J., Enns, J. T., & Brodeur, D. (1994). The development of selective attention: A life-span overview.Acta Psychologica, 86, 227-272.
• Praamstra, P., & Seiss, E. (2005). The neurophysiology of response competition: Motor cortex activation and inhibition following subliminal response priming.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 483-493.
• Raz, N. (2001). Ageing and the brain. InEncyclopedia of Life Sciences.London, UK: Macmillan Reference Ltd.
• Reimers, S., & Maylor, E. A. (2005). Task switching across the life span: Effects of age on general and specific switch costs.Developmental Psychology, 41, 661-671.
• Richards, J. E. (2000). Localizing the development of covert attention in infants with scalp event-related potentials.Developmental Psychology, 36, 91-108.
• Ridderinkhof, K. R., & van der Molen, M. W. (1995). A psychophysiological analysis of developmental differences in the ability to resist interference.Child Development, 66, 1040-1056.
• Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (1997). The influence of subliminally presented primes on response preparation.Sprache & Kognition, 16, 166-175.
• Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2000). A central/peripheral asymmetry in subliminal priming.Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1367-1382.
• Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2001). Partial response activation to masked primes is not dependent on response readiness.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 208-222.
• Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2002). Motor activation with and without inhibition: Evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control.Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 148-162.
• Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2004a).Active masks and active inhibition: A comment on Lleras & Enns (2004) and on Verleger et al. (2004).Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2004b). Subliminal stimuli can bias ‘free’ choices between response alternatives.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 463-468.
• Schlaghecken, F., & Maylor, E. A. (2005). Motor control in old age: Evidence of impaired low-level inhibition.Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 60, 158-161.
• Schlaghecken, F., Münchau, A., Bloem, B., Rothwell, J. C., & Eimer, M. (2003). Slow frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation affects reaction times, but not priming effects, in a masked prime task.Clinical Neurophysiology, 114, 1272-1277.
• Schubö, A., Schlaghecken, F., & Meinecke, C. (2001). Learning to ignore the mask in texture segmentation tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 919-931.
• Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The Costs of Changing the Representation of Action: Response Repetition and Response-Response Compatibility in Dual Tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 566-582.
• Seiss, E., & Praamstra, P (2004). The basal ganglia and inhibitory mechanisms in response selection: Evidence from subliminal priming of motor responses in Parkinson's disease.Brain, 127, 330-339.
• Spence, S. A., & Frith, C. D. (1999). Towards a functional anatomy of volition.Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 11-29.
• Turvey, M. T. (1973). On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli.Psychological Review, 81, 1-52.
• Van der Molen, M. W. (2000). Developmental changes in inhibitory processing: Evidence from psycho-physiological measures.Biological Psychology, 54, 207-239.
• Verleger, R., Jaśkowski, P., Aydemir, A., van der Lubbe, R. H. J., & Groen, M. (2004). Qualitative differences between conscious and non-conscious processing? On inverse priming induced by masked arrows.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 494-515.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10053-008-0041-0