Autocorrelation of choice-reaction times

Laming, Donald

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(79)90032-5

Cited by 179 publications

(245 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

225

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted, that our observation of an increased probability of making an error following an error on the previous trial is opposite to the predictions made by the popular conflict monitoring account of antisaccade performance (e.g., Botvinick et al, 2001;Laming, 1968;Miller and Cohen, 2001).…”

Section: Table 2 About Herecontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…The conflict monitoring account of antisaccade performance predicts that an error would lead to slower response on the following trial (e.g., Botvinick et al, 2001;Laming, 1968;Miller and Cohen, 2001). Indeed, in situations where conflict and cognitive control are high, slower responses are often found after an error (Rabbitt, 1966;Rabbitt & Rodgers, 1977;Hodgson et al, 2004).…”

Section: Differential Effects Of Slowly-and Rapidly-corrected Errors mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trial by trial effects in the antisaccade task

Tatler

Hutton

2006

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The antisaccade task requires participants to inhibit the reflexive tendency to look at a sudden onset target and instead direct their gaze to the opposite hemifield. As such it provides a convenient tool with which to investigate the cognitive and neural systems that support goaldirected behaviour. Recent models of cognitive control suggest that antisaccade performance on a single trial should vary as a function of the outcome (correct antisaccade or erroneous prosaccade) of the previous trial. In addition, repetition priming effects suggest that the spatial location of the target on the previous trial may also influence current trial performance. Thus an analysis of contingency effects in antisaccade performance may provide new insights into the factors that influence the monitoring and modulation of the antisaccade task and other ongoing behaviours. Using a multilevel modelling analysis we explored previous trial effects on current trial performance in a large antisaccade dataset. We found (1) repetition priming effects following correct antisaccades; (2) contrary to models of cognitive control antisaccade error rates were increased on trials following an error, suggesting that failures to adequately maintain the task goal can persist across more than one trial; and (3) current trial latencies varied according to the previous trial outcome (correct antisaccade, slowly corrected error or rapidly corrected error). These results are discussed in terms of current models of antisaccade performance and cognitive control and further demonstrate the utility of multilevel modelling for providing a powerful statistical technique for analysing antisaccade data.

show abstract

Section: Table 2 About Herecontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Differential Effects Of Slowly-and Rapidly-corrected Errors mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trial by trial effects in the antisaccade task

Tatler

Hutton

2006

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For FAs, we not only observed evaluative priming but also post-error slowing (Laming, 1979;Rabbitt, 1966) as indicated by slower evaluative categorizations following FAs than hits (either fast or slow). However, evaluative priming was still highly significant when controlling for this general post-error slowing effect (by including it as a covariate in the Evaluation of actions 24 statistical analyses), suggesting that these two effects (priming and slowing) may reflect different processes during action monitoring.…”

Section: Affective Value Of the Action Primes Evaluative Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 74%

Evidence for the automatic evaluation of self-generated actions

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the complexity of the contingencies and their non-deterministic nature on a trial-by-trial basis meant that the participants' anticipations would have frequently been wrong, and this could have reduced their speed and accuracy both on the anticipated trial and on subsequent trials if they made an error (cf. Laming, 1979). Moreover, even though they were not directly questioned about it, some participants did indeed report that they stopped trying to anticipate the next stimulus location in order to improve their performance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human sequence learning under incidental and intentional conditions.

Jones¹,

McLaren²

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research explored the role that dissociable associative learning and hypothesis-testing processes may play in human sequence learning. Two two-choice SRT tasks were conducted, one under incidental conditions and the other under intentional conditions. In both cases an experimental group was trained on four sub-sequences (i.e. XXX, XYY, YYX and YXY). To control for sequential-effects, sequence learning was assayed by comparing their performance to a control group that had been trained on a pseudo-random ordering, during a test-phase in which both groups experienced effectively the same trial-order. Under incidental conditions participants demonstrated learning of the sub-sequences that ended in an alternation, but not of those that ended in a repetition. In contrast, under intentional conditions XXX showed the greatest evidence of learning. This dissociation is explained using a two-process model of learning, with an associative process (the Augmented SRN) capturing the incidental pattern, and a rule-based process explaining the advantage for XXX under intentional conditions. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

show abstract

Autocorrelation of choice-reaction times

Cited by 179 publications

References 23 publications

Trial by trial effects in the antisaccade task

Trial by trial effects in the antisaccade task

Evidence for the automatic evaluation of self-generated actions

Human sequence learning under incidental and intentional conditions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About