Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 M.Sc. of Motor Behavior, Alzahra University of Tehran
2 Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, Alzahra University of Tehran
Abstract
The purpose of this study was the determination of the effect of type, accuracy and time in offering the precue on selective reaction time of body based on Inhibition of return theory. In this study, according to the available sampling16 students of physical education at Alzahra University were selected. In this study the Eight-way system reaction time with the ability to provide precue was used and valid and invalid visual and hearing precue with pre-period 100,200,500 and 1000 ms between precue and stimulus were used randomly. Participants performed one category of 5trial to learn the task and 18Categories of 5trial tests in random order. Findings showed that the time of reaction in the valid precue was better than invalid and without precue. Reaction time between 100and 200 ms SOA: there were not significant differences in the valid and invalid vision precue and valid and invalid hearing precue but there was a significant difference among the other SOA levels. There was a significant difference between the reaction in the vision and hearing precue. The time of the reaction in the vision precue was better than hearing precue. The time of the reaction in the invalid vision was better than the invalid hearing and the time of the reaction of the valid vision was better than valid hearing. This study confirmed inhibition of return theory in valid hearing and visual precues but just the inhibition effect was seen in the reaction time in invalid precues in different SOAs.
Keywords
Main Subjects
- Magill RA. Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications. Vol. 11. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
- Ganji H. Wok psychology. Tehran: Pub Arasbaran; 1998. (In Persian)
- Posner MI. Cohen Y. Components of visual orienting. In: Bouma H, Bouwhuis DG, editors. Attention and performance. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1984. p 531–56.
- Schmit RA. Lee TD. Motor control and leaning. Trans Hemayattalab R, Ghaemi A.Tehran : Pub science and move; 2011.
- Habibifar F. Comparing the effects of task difficulty on the inhibition of return patterns of older adults. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University; 2011. (In Persian)
- Lupianez J, Milliken B, Solano C, Weaver B, Tipper S. On the strategic modulationof the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return. The quarterly journal of experimental psychology (E.P.S). 2001,54A(3),753-73.
- Taylor TL. Klein RM. On the causes and effects of inhibition of return. Psychon Bull. 1998;5:625–43.
- Abrams RA, Doblin RS. Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cueing on eye movement latencies. J ExpPsychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994;20:467–77.
- Wang Z, Satel J, Klein RM. Sensory and motor mechanisms of oculomotor inhibition of return. Exp Brain Res. 2012;218:441–53.
- Klein R. Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2000. 138–47.
- Schmidt W. Inhibition of return without visual input. Neuropsychologia. 1996;34, 943-52.
- Satel J, Wang Z, Trappenberg TP, Klein RM. Modeling inhibition of return as short-term depression of early sensory input to the superior colliculus. Vis Res. 2011;51:987–96.
- Pratt J, Hirshhorn M. Examining the time course of facilitation and inhibition with simultaneous onset and offset cues. Psychological Research. 2003;67, 261–5.
- Birmingam E, Pratt J. Examining inhibition of return whith onset and offset cues in the multiple-cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica. 2005;118:101-21.
- Adam JJ, Pratt J. Motor set modulates automatic priming effects of uninformative cues. ActaPsychologica. 2008;128:216-24.
- Euphrosyne, Karsten. Tatjana, Dina, Bernhard and Ulrich. Blunted inhibition of return in schizophrenia-evidence from a longitudinal study. Progress in neuroPsychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. 2004;28(2):389–96.
- Chica AB, Lupiáñez J, Bartolomeo P. Dissociating inhibition of return from the endogenous orienting of spatial attention: evidence from detection and discrimination tasks. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2006;23(7):1015–34.
- Lee D. Effects of exogenous and endogenous attention on visually guided hand movement. Cognitive Brain Research. 1999;8:143-56.
- Rosenbaum DA. Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology (General). 1980;109(4):444-74.
- Jentzsch I, Leuthold H. Advance movement preparation of eye, foot, and hand: A comparative study using movement-related brain potential. Cognitive Brain Research. 2002;14(2):201-17.
- Anson JG, Hyland BI, Kotter R, Wickens R. Parameterprecuing and motor preparation. Motor control. 2000;4:221-31.
- Shojae M. VaezMosavi M. The effect of precue parameters on reaction time task force production. Olympic. 2005;12:8-10. (In Persian)
- Posner M, Rafal R, Choate L, Vaughan J. Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1985;2:211-28.
- Lupiáñez J, Ruz M, Funes MJ, Milliken B. The manifestation of attentional capture: Facilitation or IOR depending on task demands. Psychol Res. 2007; 71(1):77–91.
- Riggio L, Bello A, Umiltà C. Inhibitory and facilitatory effects of cue onset and offset. Psychological Research. 1998;61:107–18.
- Maruff P, Yucel M, Danckert J, Stuart G, Jon C. Facilitation and inhibition arising from the exogenous orienting of covert attention depends on the temporal properties of spatial cues and targets. Neuropsychologia. 1999;37:731-44.
- Collie A, Maruff P, Yucel M, Danckert J, Currie J. Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention. Journal of Exprimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2000;26:1733-45.
- Lee D. Effects of exogenous and endogenous attention on visually guided hand movement. Cognitive Brain Research. 1999;8:143-56.
)