Browsing by Author "Donohue, Sarah E"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Cross-modal stimulus conflict: the behavioral effects of stimulus input timing in a visual-auditory Stroop task.
    (PLoS One, 2013) Donohue, Sarah E; Appelbaum, Lawrence G; Park, Christina J; Roberts, Kenneth C; Woldorff, Marty G
    Cross-modal processing depends strongly on the compatibility between different sensory inputs, the relative timing of their arrival to brain processing components, and on how attention is allocated. In this behavioral study, we employed a cross-modal audio-visual Stroop task in which we manipulated the within-trial stimulus-onset-asynchronies (SOAs) of the stimulus-component inputs, the grouping of the SOAs (blocked vs. random), the attended modality (auditory or visual), and the congruency of the Stroop color-word stimuli (congruent, incongruent, neutral) to assess how these factors interact within a multisensory context. One main result was that visual distractors produced larger incongruency effects on auditory targets than vice versa. Moreover, as revealed by both overall shorter response times (RTs) and relative shifts in the psychometric incongruency-effect functions, visual-information processing was faster and produced stronger and longer-lasting incongruency effects than did auditory. When attending to either modality, stimulus incongruency from the other modality interacted with SOA, yielding larger effects when the irrelevant distractor occurred prior to the attended target, but no interaction with SOA grouping. Finally, relative to neutral-stimuli, and across the wide range of the SOAs employed, congruency led to substantially more behavioral facilitation than did incongruency to interference, in contrast to findings that within-modality stimulus-compatibility effects tend to be more evenly split between facilitation and interference. In sum, the present findings reveal several key characteristics of how we process the stimulus compatibility of cross-modal sensory inputs, reflecting stimulus processing patterns that are critical for successfully navigating our complex multisensory world.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Is one enough? The case for non-additive influences of visual features on crossmodal Stroop interference.
    (Front Psychol, 2013) Appelbaum, Lawrence G; Donohue, Sarah E; Park, Christina J; Woldorff, Marty G
    When different perceptual signals arising from the same physical entity are integrated, they form a more reliable sensory estimate. When such repetitive sensory signals are pitted against other competing stimuli, such as in a Stroop Task, this redundancy may lead to stronger processing that biases behavior toward reporting the redundant stimuli. This bias would therefore, be expected to evoke greater incongruency effects than if these stimuli did not contain redundant sensory features. In the present paper we report that this is not the case for a set of three crossmodal, auditory-visual Stroop tasks. In these tasks participants attended to, and reported, either the visual or the auditory stimulus (in separate blocks) while ignoring the other, unattended modality. The visual component of these stimuli could be purely semantic (words), purely perceptual (colors), or the combination of both. Based on previous work showing enhanced crossmodal integration and visual search gains for redundantly coded stimuli, we had expected that relative to the single features, redundant visual features would have induced both greater visual distracter incongruency effects for attended auditory targets, and been less influenced by auditory distracters for attended visual targets. Overall, reaction times were faster for visual targets and were dominated by behavioral facilitation for the cross-modal interactions (relative to interference), but showed surprisingly little influence of visual feature redundancy. Post-hoc analyses revealed modest and trending evidence for possible increases in behavioral interference for redundant visual distracters on auditory targets, however, these effects were substantially smaller than anticipated and were not accompanied by a redundancy effect for behavioral facilitation or for attended visual targets.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The neural dynamics of stimulus and response conflict processing as a function of response complexity and task demands.
    (Neuropsychologia, 2016-04) Donohue, Sarah E; Appelbaum, Lawrence G; McKay, Cameron C; Woldorff, Marty G
    Both stimulus and response conflict can disrupt behavior by slowing response times and decreasing accuracy. Although several neural activations have been associated with conflict processing, it is unclear how specific any of these are to the type of stimulus conflict or the amount of response conflict. Here, we recorded electrical brain activity, while manipulating the type of stimulus conflict in the task (spatial [Flanker] versus semantic [Stroop]) and the amount of response conflict (two versus four response choices). Behaviorally, responses were slower to incongruent versus congruent stimuli across all task and response types, along with overall slowing for higher response-mapping complexity. The earliest incongruency-related neural effect was a short-duration frontally-distributed negativity at ~200 ms that was only present in the Flanker spatial-conflict task. At longer latencies, the classic fronto-central incongruency-related negativity 'N(inc)' was observed for all conditions, but was larger and ~100 ms longer in duration with more response options. Further, the onset of the motor-related lateralized readiness potential (LRP) was earlier for the two vs. four response sets, indicating that smaller response sets enabled faster motor-response preparation. The late positive complex (LPC) was present in all conditions except the two-response Stroop task, suggesting this late conflict-related activity is not specifically related to task type or response-mapping complexity. Importantly, across tasks and conditions, the LRP onset at or before the conflict-related N(inc), indicating that motor preparation is a rapid, automatic process that interacts with the conflict-detection processes after it has begun. Together, these data highlight how different conflict-related processes operate in parallel and depend on both the cognitive demands of the task and the number of response options.