The Effect Foreperiod and Time Intervals between Stimuli on the Psychological Refractory Period: Evidence for Preparation

Nouri, Kambiz; Shetab Booshehri, Seyede Nahid; Doustan, Mohammadreza

doi:10.22059/jmlm.2021.310306.1533

Document Type : Research Paper I Open Access I Released under CC BY-NC 4.0 license

Authors

¹ MSc of Motor Behavior, Department of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

² Associate Professor, Department of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

³ Assistant Professor, Department of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jmlm.2021.310306.1533

Abstract

Given the importance of preparation to respond to two stimuli in different sport conditions, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of foreperiod and time intervals between two stimuli on psychological refractory period (PRP) in athletes. This study was semi-experimental with a within-group design and fundamental-applied in terms of objectives. 50 male athlete students of Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz (age range 22.47±1.45 years) were selected by convenience sampling method. A five-core processor ASUS notebook, Edinburgh Handedness Questionnaire, software and hardware to measure the psychological refractory period were used in this study. Participants responded to two visual (selective) stimuli that were presented with short time intervals as quickly as possible. Tests were conducted in dual tasks and single tasks in foreperiods of 1,2,4,8 s and time intervals of 100, 250, 500, 800 ms randomly. The data were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, within group analysis of variance at significance level (P<0.05). The results showed that the effects of foreperiod and the stimuli intervals were significant. The foreperiod of 1s and interval of 100 ms had the most psychological refractory period and foreperiod of 8s and interval of 800 ms had the lowest psychological refractory period. This study showed that the pattern of psychological refractory period was affected by experimental manipulation of the preparation processes when recognizing the stages of information processing. Contrary to the common belief that preparation time operates on premotor processes, in the present study preparation time operates on late motion processes and confirms the existence of processing bottlenecks in dual tasks

Keywords

References

1. Zylberberg A, Ouellette B, Sigman M, Roelfsema PR. Decision making during the psychological refractory period. Current biology. 2012;22(19):1795-9.

2. Kosinski RJ. A literature review on reaction time. Clemson University. 2008;10(1).

3. Magill RA, Anderson D. Motor learning and control: McGraw-Hill Publishing; 2010.

4. Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Wi nstein C, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. 6nd ed. United States of America: Human kinetics; 2018.

5. Maslovat D, Chua R, Spencer HC, Forgaard CJ, Carlsen AN, Franks IM. Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: Effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period. Acta psychologica. 2013;144(3):481-7.

6. Miller J, Reynolds A. The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2003;29(6):1126.

7. Ruthruff E, Johnston JC, Van Selst M. Why practice reduces dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2001;27(1):3.

8. Melzer I, Kurz I, Shahar D, Levi M, Oddsson L. Application of the voluntary step execution test to identify elderly fallers. Age and ageing. 2007;36(5):532-7.

9. Pashler H. Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological bulletin. 1994;116(2):220.

10. Sommer W, Leuthold H, Schubert T. Multiple bottlenecks in information processing? An electrophysiological examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2001;8(1):81-8.

11. Korolczuk I, Burle B, Coull JT. The costs and benefits of temporal predictability: impaired inhibition of prepotent responses accompanies increased activation of task-relevant responses. Cognition. 2018;179:102-10.

12. Janczyk M, Huestegge L. Effects of a no-go Task 2 on Task 1 performance in dual-tasking: From benefits to costs. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 2017;79(3):796-806.

13. Fischer R, Plessow F. Efficient multitasking: parallel versus serial processing of multiple tasks. Frontiers in psychology. 2015;6:1366.

14. Bausenhart KM, Rolke B, Hackley SA, Ulrich R. The locus of temporal preparation effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2006;13(3):536-42.

15. Meyer DE, Kieras DE. A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part I. Basic mechanisms. Psychological review. 1997;104(1):3.

16. Navon D, Miller J. Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive psychology. 2002;44(3):193-251.

17. Tombu M, Jolicœur P. A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2003;29(1):3.

18. Ko Y-T, Miller J. Locus of backward crosstalk effects on task 1 in a psychological refractory period task. Experimental Psychology. 2014;61(1):30-37.

19. Kavyani M, Farsi A, Abdoli B. [The Effect of the Visual-Spatial Orienting on The Psychology Refractory Period in Various Difficulty Levels of Perceptual-Motor Tasks (In Persian)]. 2016;5(17):13-26.

20. Telford CW. The refractory phase of voluntary and associative responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1931;14(1):1.

21. Lien M-C, Proctor RW. Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2002;9(2):212-38.

22. Welford AT. The psychological refractory period and the timing of high-speed performance-a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. 1952;43(1):2.

23. Langner R, Steinborn MB, Chatterjee A, Sturm W, Willmes K. Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta psychologica. 2010;133(1):64-72.

24. Magill R. The stages of learning. motor learning and control. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007. p. 263-289.

25. Harley LR. Motor learning and its transfer during bilateral arm reaching [MSc] United States of America: Georgia Institute of Technology; 2011.

26. Allan LG, Gibbon J. Human bisection at the geometric mean. Learning and motivation. 1991;22(1-2):39-58.

27. Wearden JH, Lejeune H. Scalar properties in human timing: Conformity and violations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2008;61(4):569-87.

28. Elithorn A, Lawrence C. Central inhibition-some refractory observations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1955;7(3):116-27.

29. Bertelson P, Tisseyre F. The time-course of preparation with regular and irregular foreperiods. The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. 1968;20(3):297-300.

30. Näätänen R. The diminishing time-uncertainty with the lapse of time after the warning signal in reaction-time experiments with varying fore-periods. Acta psychologica. 1970;34:399-419.

31. Laflamme V, Zakay D, Gamache P-L, Grondin S. Foreperiod and range effects on time interval categorization. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 2015;77(5):1507-14.

32. Kahneman D, Tversky A. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological review. 1973;80(4):237.

33. Klapp ST, Maslovat D, Jagacinski RJ. The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2019;26(1):29-47.

34. MÜller‐Gethmann H, Ulrich R, Rinkenauer G. Locus of the effect of temporal preparation: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Psychophysiology. 2003;40(4):597-611.

35. Hackley SA, Valle-Inclán F. Which stages of processing are speeded by a warning signal? Biological psychology. 2003;64(1-2):27-45.

36. Thomson SJ, Watter S. Information continuity across the response selection bottleneck: Early parallel Task 2 response activation contributes to overt Task 2 performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 2013;75(5):934-53.

37. Sanders AF. Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill: 1nd ed. New jersey: publishers London Mahwah; 1998.

38. Sanders A. Some effects of instructed muscle tension on choice reaction time and movement time. Attention and performance VIII. 1980;8:59-74.

39. Posner MI. Chronometric explorations of mind: 1nd ed. United States of America: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1978.

Journal of Sports and Motor Development and Learning

The Effect Foreperiod and Time Intervals between Stimuli on the Psychological Refractory Period: Evidence for Preparation

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 1
June 2021
Pages 73-90

The Effect Foreperiod and Time Intervals between Stimuli on the Psychological Refractory Period: Evidence for Preparation

References

References

Volume 13, Issue 1June 2021Pages 73-90

Volume 13, Issue 1
June 2021
Pages 73-90