Asymmetric interference in concurrent time-to-contact estimation: Cousin or twin of the psychological refractory period effect?

The Effect of Brain Anodal and Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Psychological Refractory Period at Different Stimulus-Onset Asynchrony in Non-Fatigue and Mental Fatigue Conditions

The psychological refractory period (PRP) effect occurs when two stimuli that require separate responses are presented sequentially, particularly with a short and variable time interval between them. Fatigue is a suboptimal psycho-physiological state that leads to changes in strategies. In recent years, numerous studies have investigated the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor control. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of two tDCS methods, anodal and cathodal, on PRP in ten different conditions of stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) under non-fatigue and mental fatigue conditions. The participants involved 39 male university students aged 19 to 25 years. In the pre-test, they were assessed using the PRP measurement tool under both non-fatigue and mental fatigue conditions. The mental fatigue was induced by a 30-min Stroop task. The test consisted of two stimuli with different SOAs (50, 75, 100, 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1200, and 1500 ms). The first was a visual stimulus with three choices (letters A, B, and C). After a random SOA, the second stimulus, a visual stimulus with three choices (colors red, yellow, and blue), was presented. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to the anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation groups and underwent four consecutive sessions of tDCS stimulation. In the anodal and cathodal stimulation groups, 20 min of tDCS stimulation were applied to the PLPFC area in each session, while in the sham group, the stimulation was artificially applied. All participants were assessed using the same measurement tools as in the pre-test phase, in a post-test phase one day after the last stimulation session, and in a follow-up phase four days after that. Inferential statistics include mixed ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, independent, and dependent t-tests. The findings indicated that the response time to the second stimulus was longer at lower SOAs. However, there was no significant difference between the groups in this regard. Additionally, there was no significant difference in response time to the second stimulus between the fatigue and non-fatigue conditions, or between the groups. Therefore, tDCS had no significant effect. There was a significant difference between mental fatigue and non-fatigue conditions in the psychological refractory period. Moreover, at lower SOAs, the PRP was longer than at higher SOAs. In conditions of fatigue, the active stimulation groups (anodal and cathodal) performed better than the sham stimulation group at higher SOAs. Considering the difference in response to both stimuli at different SOAs, some central aspects of the response can be simultaneously parallel. Fatigue also affects parallel processing. This study supports the response integration phenomenon in PRP, which predicts that there will be an increase in response time to the first stimulus as the interval between the presentation of the two stimuli increases. This finding contradicts the bottleneck model. In this study, the effectiveness of cathodal and anodal tDCS on response time to the second stimulus and PRP was found to be very small.

The role of eye movements in perceiving vehicle speed and time-to-arrival at the roadside

To avoid collisions, pedestrians depend on their ability to perceive and interpret the visual motion of other road users. Eye movements influence motion perception, yet pedestrians' gaze behavior has been little investigated. In the present study, we ask whether observers sample visual information differently when making two types of judgements based on the same virtual road-crossing scenario and to which extent spontaneous gaze behavior affects those judgements. Participants performed in succession a speed and a time-to-arrival two-interval discrimination task on the same simple traffic scenario-a car approaching at a constant speed (varying from 10 to 90 km/h) on a single-lane road. On average, observers were able to discriminate vehicle speeds of around 18 km/h and times-to-arrival of 0.7 s. In both tasks, observers placed their gaze closely towards the center of the vehicle's front plane while pursuing the vehicle. Other areas of the visual scene were sampled infrequently. No differences were found in the average gaze behavior between the two tasks and a pattern classifier (Support Vector Machine), trained on trial-level gaze patterns, failed to reliably classify the task from the spontaneous eye movements it elicited. Saccadic gaze behavior could predict time-to-arrival discrimination performance, demonstrating the relevance of gaze behavior for perceptual sensitivity in road-crossing.

Asymmetrical time-to-contact error with two moving objects persists across different vertical separations

When human observers estimate the time-to-contact (TTC) of more than one object there is an asymmetric pattern of error consistent with prioritizing the lead object at the expense of the trail object. Here, we examined TTC estimation in a prediction motion task where two objects moved along horizontal trajectories (5 or 7.5 °/s) that had different vertical separation, and thus placed specific demands on visuospatial attention. Results showed that participants were able to accurately judge arrival order, irrespective of vertical separation, in all but two conditions where the object trajectories crossed close to the arrival location. Constant error was significantly higher for the object that trailed, as opposed to led, by 250 or 500 ms. Asymmetry in constant error between the lead and trail object was not influenced by vertical separation, and was also evident across a range of arrival times. However, while the lag between the two consecutive TTC estimations was scaled to the actual difference in object arrival times, lag did increase with vertical separation. Taken together, our results confirm that TTC estimation of two moving objects in the prediction motion task suffers from an asymmetrical interference, which is likely related to factors that influence attentional allocation.