Unconscious inhibition has generally been perceived to be dependent on stimulus–response (S-R) associations. Some research has shown that the inhibition related to strong associations increases with response latency to the target. Although this finding suggests that the inhibitory process may need time to unfold, its exact internal temporal dynamic remains to be elucidated. This study examined the role of spontaneous reaction time (RT) fluctuations on sensorimotor processes using letters (Experiments 1 and 2) and faces (Experiment 3), which are more ubiquitous in our environment and do not contain strong associations as stimuli in fixed and free-choice tasks. The results averaged across trials showed that there was no negative compatibility effect in either fixed or free-choice tasks. However, when trials were classified by their response latency, the results indicated that compatibility effects decreased and became negative with longer RTs in the fixed task. These results suggest that the internal temporal dynamic of unconscious inhibitory mechanisms related to fixed responses remains effective for stimuli that do not contain strong S-R associations.
AtasA.CleeremansA. (2015). The temporal dynamic of automatic inhibition of irrelevant actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 289–305. doi:10.1037/a0038654
2.
BennettJ. D.LlerasA.OrietC.EnnsJ. T. (2007). A negative compatibility effect in priming of emotional faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 908–912. doi:10.3758/BF03194120
3.
BodnerG. E.MuljiR. (2010). Prime proportion affects masked priming of fixed and free-choice responses. Experimental Psychology, 57, 360–366. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000043
4.
BowmanH.SchlagheckenF.EimerM. (2006). A neural network model of inhibitory processes in subliminal priming. Visual Cognition, 13, 401–480. doi:10.1080/13506280444000823
BoyF.SumnerP. (2010). Tight coupling between positive and reversed priming in the masked prime paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 892–905. doi:10.1037/a0017173
7.
BurleB.van den WildenbergW. P. M.RidderinkhofK. R. (2005). Dynamics of facilitation and interference in cue-priming and Simon tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 619–641. doi:10.1080/09541440540000121
8.
EimerM. (1999). Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of masked prime stimuli on motor activation and behavioural performance. Acta Psychologica, 101, 293–313. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00009-8
9.
EimerM.SchlagheckenF. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737–1747. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1737
10.
EimerM.SchlagheckenF. (2002). Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: Evidence from masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 514–520. doi:10.3758/BF03196307
11.
ForstmannB. U.van den WildenbergW. P.RidderinkhofK. R. (2008). Neural mechanisms, temporal dynamics, and individual differences in interference control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1854–1865. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20122
12.
JaśkowskiP. (2007). The effect of nonmasking distractors on the priming of motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 456–468. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.2.456
13.
JaśkowskiP. (2008). The negative compatibility effect with nonmasking flankers: A case for mask-triggered inhibition hypothesis. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 765–777. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.12.002
14.
JaśkowskiP.BiałuńskaA.TomanekM.VerlegerR. (2008). Mask- and distractor-triggered inhibitory processes in the priming of motor responses: An EEG study. Psychophysiology, 45, 70–85. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00595.x
15.
KieselA.WagenerA.KundeW.HoffmannJ.FallgatterA. J.StöckerC. (2006). Unconscious manipulation of free choice in humans. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 397–408. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.10.002
16.
KlappS. T. (2015). One version of direct response priming requires automatization of the relevant associations but not awareness of the prime. Consciousness and Cognition, 34, 163–175. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.004
17.
KlappS. T.HaasB. W. (2005). Nonconscious 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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.193
18.
KlappS. T.HinkleyL. B. (2002). The negative compatibility effect: Unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 255–269. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.131.2.255
19.
KlauerK. C.DittrichK. (2010). From sunshine to double arrows: An evaluation window account of negative compatibility effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 490–519. doi:10.1037/a0019746
20.
LingnauA.VorbergD. (2005). The time course of response inhibition in masked priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 545–557. doi:10.3758/BF03193330
21.
MattlerU. (2005). Inhibition and decay of motor and nonmotor priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 285–300. doi:10.3758/BF03206492
22.
MattlerU.PalmerS. (2012). Time course of free-choice priming effects explained by a simple accumulator model. Cognition, 123, 347–360. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.002
23.
MaylorE. A.BirakK. S.SchlagheckenF. (2011). Inhibitory motor control in old age: Evidence for de-automatization?Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 132. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00132
24.
NeillW. T.TerryK. M.ValdesL. A. (1994). Negative priming without probe selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 119–121. doi:10.3758/BF03200767
25.
NeumannO. (1984). Automatic processing: A review of recent findings and a plea for an old theory. Cognition and Motor Processes, 255, 293. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69382-3_17
26.
OcampoB.FinkbeinerM. (2013). The negative compatibility effect with relevant masks: A case for automatic motor inhibition. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 822. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00822
27.
PanisS.SchmidtT. (2016). Review: What is shaping RT and accuracy distributions? Active and selective response inhibition causes the negative compatibility effect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28, 1651–1671. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00998
28.
RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. In MarsdenP. V. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 111–196). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
29.
RidderinkhofK. R. (2002a). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In PrinzW.HommelB. (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 494–519). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
RidderinkhofK. R. (2002b). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 312–323. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0104-7
31.
RidderinkhofK. R.van den WildenbergW. P. M.WijnenJ.BurleB.PosnerM. (Eds.). (2004). Response inhibition in conflict tasks is revealed in delta plots. In PosnerM. I. (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (pp. 369–377). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
32.
SchlagheckenF.BlagroveE.MaylorE. A. (2007). Incidental learning of S-R contingencies in the masked prime task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1177–1188. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1177
33.
SchlagheckenF.EimerM. (2000). A central-peripheral asymmetry in masked priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1367–1382. doi:10.3758/BF03212139
34.
SchlagheckenF.EimerM. (2002). Motor activation with and without inhibition: Evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 148–162. doi:10.3758/BF03194564
35.
SchlagheckenF.EimerM. (2004). Masked prime stimuli can bias “free” choices between response alternatives. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 463–468. doi:10.3758/BF03196596
36.
SchmidtT.HauchV.SchmidtF. (2015). Mask-triggered thrust reversal in the negative compatibility effect. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77, 2377–2398. doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0923-4
37.
SumnerP. (2008). Mask-induced priming and the negative compatibility effect. Experimental Psychology, 55, 133–141. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.55.2.133
38.
SumnerP.BrandwoodT. (2008). Oscillations in motor priming positive rebound follows the inhibitory phase in the masked prime paradigm. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40, 484–489. doi:10.3200/JMBR.40.6.484-490
39.
TipperS. P.WeaverB.CameronS.BrehautJ. C.BastedoJ. (1991). Inhibitory mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: Time course and disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 681–692. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.681
40.
VainioL. (2011). Negative stimulus-response compatibility observed with a briefly displayed image of a hand. Brain and Cognition, 77, 382–390. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.09.007
41.
VainioL.AlénH.HiltunenS.LehikoinenK.LindbäckH.PatrikainenA. (2013). Response inhibition triggered by the briefly viewed image of a hand: Behavioural and electrophysiological evidence. Neuropsychologia, 51, 493–499. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.12.004
42.
WangY.WangY.LiuP.DiM.GongY.ZhaoL.ChenQ. (2017). Response readiness modulates the development of association-based automaticity in masked priming. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 79, 820–832. doi:10.3758/s13414-016-1275-4
43.
WascherE.SchatzU.KuderT.VerlegerR. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.731
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
