Facilitatory effects of an auditory warning stimulus in a visual location identification task and a visual shape identification task

The occurrence of a weak auditory warning stimulus increases the speed of the response to a subsequent visual target stimulus that must be identified. This facilitatory effect has been attributed to the temporal expectancy automatically induced by the warning stimulus. It has not been determined whether this results from a modulation of the stimulus identification process, the response selection process or both. The present study examined these possibilities. A group of 12 young adults performed a reaction time location identification task and another group of 12 young adults performed a reaction time shape identification task. A visual target stimulus was presented 1850 to 2350 ms plus a fixed interval (50, 100, 200, 400, 800, or 1600 ms, depending on the block) after the appearance of a fixation point, on its left or right side, above or below a virtual horizontal line passing through it. In half of the trials, a weak auditory warning stimulus (S1) appeared 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, or 1600 ms (according to the block) before the target stimulus (S2). Twelve trials were run for each condition. The S1 produced a facilitatory effect for the 200, 400, 800, and 1600 ms stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA) in the case of the side stimulus-response (S-R) corresponding condition, and for the 100 and 400 ms SOA in the case of the side S-R non-corresponding condition. Since these two conditions differ mainly by their response selection requirements, it is reasonable to conclude that automatic temporal expectancy influences the response selection process.

Effects of visual and auditory stimuli in a choice reaction time task

The effect produced by a warning stimulus(i) (WS) in reaction time (RT) tasks is commonly attributed to a facilitation of sensorimotor mechanisms by alertness. Recently, evidence was presented that this effect is also related to a proactive inhibition of motor control mechanisms. This inhibition would hinder responding to the WS instead of the target stimulus (TS). Some studies have shown that auditory WS produce a stronger facilitatory effect than visual WS. The present study investigated whether the former WS also produces a stronger inhibitory effect than the latter WS. In one session, the RTs to a visual target in two groups of volunteers were evaluated. In a second session, subjects reacted to the visual target both with (50% of the trials) and without (50% of the trials) a WS. During trials, when subjects received a WS, one group received a visual WS and the other group was presented with an auditory WS. In the first session, the mean RTs of the two groups did not differ significantly. In the second session, the mean RT of the two groups in the presence of the WS was shorter than in their absence. The mean RT in the absence of the auditory WS was significantly longer than the mean RT in the absence of the visual WS. Mean RTs did not differ significantly between the present conditions of the visual and auditory WS. The longer RTs of the auditory WS group as opposed to the visual WS group in the WS-absent trials suggest that auditory WS exert a stronger inhibitory influence on responsivity than visual WS.