Stop signals delay synchrony more for finger tapping than vocalization: a dual modality study of rhythmic synchronization in the stop signal task

Effects of individual practice on joint musical synchronization

Successful music-making requires precise sensorimotor synchronization, both in individual (solo) and joint (ensemble) social settings. We investigated how individual practice synchronizing with a temporally regular melody (Solo conditions) influences subsequent synchronization between two partners (Joint conditions). Musically trained adults practiced producing a melody by tapping on a keypad; each tap generated the next tone in the melody. First, the pairs synchronized their melody productions with their partner in a baseline Joint synchronization task. Then each partner separately synchronized their melody with a computer-generated recording of the partner's melody in a Solo intervention condition that presented either Normal (temporally regular) auditory feedback or delayed feedback (by 30-70 ms) in occasional (25%) randomly placed tone positions. Then the pairs synchronized again with their partner in a Joint condition. Next, they performed the second Solo condition (normal or delayed auditory feedback) followed again by the Joint condition. Joint synchronization performance was modeled with a delay-coupled oscillator model to assess the coupling strength between partners. Absolute asynchronies in the Solo Intervention tasks were greater in the Delayed feedback condition than in the Normal feedback condition. Model estimates yielded larger coupling values between partners in Joint conditions that followed the Solo Normal feedback than the Solo Delayed feedback. Notably, the asynchronies were smaller in the Joint conditions than in the Solo conditions. These findings indicate that coupled interactions in settings of two or more performers can be improved by individual synchronization practice.

Stop-signal delay reflects response selection duration in stop-signal task

The stop-signal task (SST) is widely used for studying the speed of the latent process of response inhibition. The SST patterns are typically explained by a horse-race model (HRM) with supposed Go and Stop processes. However, HRM does not agree with the sequential-stage model of response control. As a result, the exact relationship between the response selection, the response execution stages, and the Stop process remains unclear. We propose that response selection occurs within the stop-signal delay (SSD) period, and that the competition between the Go and Stop processes occurs within the response execution period. To confirm this, we conducted two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants carried out a modified SST task with an additional stimulus category - Cued-Go. In the Cued-Go trials, cues were followed by imperative Go signals. The Cue-Go period duration was dynamically adjusted by an adaptive algorithm based on the response times reflecting the individual response selection duration. In Experiment 2, Cued-Go stimuli were followed by Stop Signals in half of the trials and response inhibition efficiency was calculated. The results of Experiment 1 indicate that SSD reflects the duration of the response selection process. The results of Experiment 2 show that this process has an independent and small effect on the effectiveness of controlled inhibition of the target response. Based on our findings, we propose a two-stage model of response inhibition in SST, with the first stage including response selection process and the second stage response inhibition following the SS presentation.

Oddball onset timing: Little evidence of early gating of oddball stimuli from tapping, reacting, and producing

Oddballs, rare or novel stimuli, appear to last longer than non-oddballs. This illusion is often attributed to the perceived time that an oddball occupies being longer than that of a non-oddball. However, it is also possible that oddball stimuli are perceived to onset earlier than non-oddballs; they are “gated” earlier in time and thus the perceived duration of those stimuli are longer. In the current article, we directly investigate this proposal by asking participants to react to, produce durations initiated with, and tap along to either oddball or standard stimuli. Tapping provided some support for earlier perceived onset of an oddball in the visual modality. However, both reaction time and duration production experiments provided evidence against an oddball being gated earlier than a standard stimulus. Contrarily, these experiments showed an oddball resulted in longer reaction times and productions, respectively. Taken together, these three experiments indicate it is unlikely that the expansion of time attributed to oddball presentation is purely due to the earlier gating of oddball stimuli. In fact, the first two experiments provide some evidence that the effect of an oddball must compensate for the later gating of these stimuli.

Associative learning of response inhibition affects perceived duration in a subsequent temporal bisection task

Interval timing, the ability to discern the duration of an event, is integral to appropriately navigating the world, from crossing the road to catching a ball. Several features of an event can affect its perceived duration, for example it has previously been shown that a large stimulus is perceived to last longer than a small stimulus. In the current article, participants performed either a Go/No-Go or variable foreperiod task prior to performing a temporal bisection task. In both the Go/No-Go and variable foreperiod tasks, participants learned an association between a particular response and a particular stimulus. Subsequently, the perceived duration of these stimuli was tested in a temporal bisection task. Our findings indicated that associating a stimulus with response inhibition (i.e. a No-Go stimulus) decreased perceived duration compared to a stimulus associated with a response (a Go stimulus). Associating a stimulus with either a short or long foreperiod, on the other hand, did not affect perceived duration. We relate this finding back to the coding efficiency theory and the processing principle. A No-Go stimulus requires more cognitive processing than a Go stimulus and would thus be predicted to increase, rather than decrease, perceived duration in both these time perception theories. Finally, we suggest how our findings might be used in future investigations of interval timing.