↓ Skip to main content

Intended actions and unexpected outcomes: automatic and controlled processing in a rapid motor task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intended actions and unexpected outcomes: automatic and controlled processing in a rapid motor task
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00237
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas O. Cheyne, Paul Ferrari, James A. Cheyne

Abstract

Human action involves a combination of controlled and automatic behavior. These processes may interact in tasks requiring rapid response selection or inhibition, where temporal constraints preclude timely intervention by conscious, controlled processes over automatized prepotent responses. Such contexts tend to produce frequent errors, but also rapidly executed correct responses, both of which may sometimes be perceived as surprising, unintended, or "automatic". In order to identify neural processes underlying these two aspects of cognitive control, we measured neuromagnetic brain activity in 12 right-handed subjects during manual responses to rapidly presented digits, with an infrequent target digit that required switching response hand (bimanual task) or response finger (unimanual task). Automaticity of responding was evidenced by response speeding (shorter response times) prior to both failed and fast correct switches. Consistent with this automaticity interpretation of fast correct switches, we observed bilateral motor preparation, as indexed by suppression of beta band (15-30 Hz) oscillations in motor cortex, prior to processing of the switch cue in the bimanual task. In contrast, right frontal theta activity (4-8 Hz) accompanying correct switch responses began after cue onset, suggesting that it reflected controlled inhibition of the default response. Further, this activity was reduced on fast correct switch trials suggesting a more automatic mode of inhibitory control. We also observed post-movement (event-related negativity) ERN-like responses and theta band increases in medial and anterior frontal regions that were significantly larger on error trials, and may reflect a combination of error and delayed inhibitory signals. We conclude that both automatic and controlled processes are engaged in parallel during rapid motor tasks, and that the relative strength and timing of these processes may underlie both optimal task performance and subjective experiences of automaticity or control.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Israel 1 1%
Romania 1 1%
Taiwan 1 1%
Unknown 90 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 24%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 13 14%
Professor 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Engineering 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 22 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2014.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,901
of 7,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,230
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#209
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.