dc.creatorGálvez-García, Germán
dc.creatorAlbayay-Valenzuela, Javier
dc.creatorPeña-Mella, Javiera Hebe
dc.creatorLavin, Marta
dc.creatorMichael, George A
dc.date2022-05-20T20:44:57Z
dc.date2022-06-18T20:32:41Z
dc.date2022-05-20T20:44:57Z
dc.date2022-06-18T20:32:41Z
dc.dateMarch10
dc.date2017
dc.date2017
dc.dateMarch9
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-22T06:42:30Z
dc.date.available2023-08-22T06:42:30Z
dc.identifier1160368
dc.identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/10533/253811
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/8328926
dc.descriptionThe aim of this research was to investigate whether the selection of the actions needs different inhibition processes during the response selection stage. In Experiment 1, we compared the magnitude of the Spatial Stroop effect, which occurs in response selection stage, in two motor actions (lifting vs reaching) when the participants performed both actions in the same block or in different blocks (mixed block vs. pure blocks).Within pure blocks, we obtained faster latencies when lifting actions were performed, but no differences in the magnitude of the Spatial Stroop effect were observed. Within mixed block, we obtained faster latencies as well as bigger-magnitude for Spatial Stroop effect when reachingactions were performed. We concluded that when no action selection is required (the pure blocks condition), inhibition works as a unitary system, whereas in the mixed block condition, where action selection is required, different inhibitory processes take place within a common processing stage. In Experiment 2, we investigated this common processing stage in depth by limiting participants’ available resources, requiring them to engage in a concurrent auditory task within a mixed block condition. The Spatial Stroop effect interacted with Movement as it did in Experiment 1, but it did not significantly interact with available resources (Auditory task x Spatial Stroop effect x Movement interaction). Thus, we concluded that available resources are distributed equally to both inhibition processes; this reinforces the likelihood of there being a common processing stage in which the different inhibitory processes take place. Keywords—inhibition process, motor processes. selective inhibition, dual task G.G.G. Author is with the Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de la Frontera. Chile, and Département de Psychologie Cognitive & Neuropsychologie, Institut de Psychologie, Laboratoire d’Étude des Mécanismes Cognitifs, Université Lyon 2, Lyon, France (e-mail: german.galvez@ufrontera.cl). J.A. Author is with the Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de la Frontera. Chile (e-mail: j.albayay91@gmail.com). J.P. Author is with the Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de la Frontera. Chile (e-mail: javiera.pena@ufrontera.cl). M.L. Author is with the Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de la Frontera. Chile (e-mail: marta.ls.@ufronteral.cl). G.A.M Author is with the Département de Psychologie Cognitive & Neuropsychologie, Institut de Psychologie, Laboratoire d’Étude des Mécanismes Cognitifs, Université Lyon 2, Lyon, France George.Michael@univ-lyon2.fr).
dc.descriptionFONDECYT
dc.descriptionFONDECYT
dc.languageeng
dc.relationinstname: ANID
dc.relationreponame: Repositorio Digital RI2.0
dc.relationInternational Congerence on Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
dc.relation19°
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/cl/
dc.titleDifferent Motor Inhibition Processes in Action Selection Stage; A study with Spatial Stroop Paradigm
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/lecture
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.coverageMiami


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución