Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30013856›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

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

Leidy J Castro-Meneses, Paul F Sowman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Leidy J Castro-Meneses *Perception in Action Research Centre (PARC), Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.
Paul F Sowman *Perception in Action Research Centre (PARC), Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3863-6675

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA robust feature of sensorimotor synchronization (SMS) performance in finger tapping to an auditory pacing signal is the negative asynchrony of the tap with respect to the pacing signal. The Paillard-Fraisse hypothesis suggests that negative asynchrony is a result of inter-modal integration, in which the brain compares sensory information across two modalities (auditory and tactile). The current study compared the asynchronies of vocalizations and finger tapping in time to an auditory pacing signal. Our first hypothesis was that vocalizations have less negative asynchrony compared to finger tapping due to the requirement for sensory integration within only a single (auditory) modality (intra-modal integration). However, due to the different measurements for vocalizations and finger responses, interpreting the comparison between these two response modalities is problematic. To address this problem, we included stop signals in the synchronization task. The rationale for this manipulation was that stop signals would perturb synchronization more in the inter-modal compared to the intra-modal task. We hypothesized that the inclusion of stop signals induce proactive inhibition, which reduces negative asynchrony. We further hypothesized that any reduction in negative asynchrony occurs to a lesser degree for vocalization than for finger tapping.

methodA total of 30 participants took part in this study. We compared SMS in a single sensory modality (vocalizations (or auditory) to auditory pacing signal) to a dual sensory modality (fingers (or tactile) to auditory pacing signal). The task was combined with a stop signal task in which stop signals were relevant in some blocks and irrelevant in others. Response-to-pacing signal asynchronies and stop signal reaction times were compared across modalities and across the two types of stop signal blocks.

resultsIn the blocks where stopping was irrelevant, we found that vocalization (-61.47 ms) was more synchronous with the auditory pacing signal compared to finger tapping (-128.29 ms). In the blocks where stopping was relevant, stop signals induced proactive inhibition, shifting the response times later. However, proactive inhibition (26.11 ms) was less evident for vocalizations compared to finger tapping (58.06 ms). DISCUSSION: These results support the interpretation that relatively large negative asynchrony in finger tapping is a consequence of inter-modal integration, whereas smaller asynchrony is associated with intra-modal integration. This study also supports the interpretation that intra-modal integration is more sensitive to synchronization discrepancies compared to inter-modal integration.

Indexed as

Finger tappingIntra-modal integrationModal integrationNegative asynchronyProactive inhibitionReactive inhibitionSensorimotor synchronizationSensory modalityStop signal taskVocalization

Identifiers

PMID30013856
PMCPMC6046193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.