Developmental dissociations of preparation over time: Deconstructing the variable foreperiod phenomena.

Abstract

In a variable foreperiod (FP) paradigm, reaction times (RTs) decrease as a function of FP on trial n (FP effect) but increase with FP on trial n - 1 (sequential effects). These phenomena have traditionally been ascribed to different strategic preparation processes. According to an alternative explanation, common conditioning laws underlie both effects. The present study aims to disentangle these opposite views using a developmental perspective. In Experiment 1A, 4- to 11-year-old children and a control group of adults performed a simple RT task with variable FPs (1, 3, and 5 s). Furthermore, 12 4- to 5-year-old children were retested after 14 months (Experiment 1B). In Experiment 2, a narrower pool of participants (4, 5, and 6 years old) performed a variable FP paradigm with different FPs (1, 2, and 3 s). The results consistently suggest different ontogenetic time courses for the two effects: The sequential effects are already present in the youngest group (4-5 years old), whereas the FP effect appears gradually some years later. These findings are not fully compatible with previous views. A dual-process account is proposed to explain the data.

Distinct developmental trajectories for explicit and implicit timing

“…Consistent with our findings that implicit forms of timing mature early and are age invariant, Vallesi and Shallice (2007) and Mento and Tarantino (2015) also found that the strength of the variable foreperiod effect was very similar in adults and children older than 6 years. Johnson and colleagues (2015), on the other hand, found that the variable foreperiod effect was actually even stronger in children than in adults.…”

Timing a week later: The role of long-term memory in temporal preparation

“…However, this finding is not inconsistent with the predictions of MTP, because recent memory traces-especially the most recent one-are assumed to carry more weight than older traces in their contribution to preparation on the current trial (see also Los et al, 2014). This mechanism allows MTP to account for short-term effects lasting a few trials (i.e., asymmetric sequential effects), which have been shown to make a robust contribution to RT (e.g., Los, 2010;Los & Van den Heuvel, 2001;Steinborn & Langner, 2012;Vallesi & Shallice, 2007;Woodrow, 1914;Zahn et al, 1963). These sequential effects also contribute to the difference in RT-foreperiod functions between the exponential and antiexponential distributions (i.e., there are more primed short-short transitions in the exponential than antiexponential distribution; see Los & Agter, 2005, for a detailed discussion).…”

“…The observed transfer effect is hard to reconcile with models of temporal preparation based on the hazard function (e.g., Coull et al, 2011;Cui et al, 2009;Janssen & Shadlen, 2005;Vallesi & Shallice, 2007). The hazard function is derived from the current distribution of foreperiods without regard to their history.…”

“…It has been argued that the changing hazard is used by a controlled process that allows participants to strategically apply knowledge about the hazard function to enhance their preparatory state (e.g., Coull et al, 2011;Vallesi et al, 2013;Vallesi, McIntosh, Shallice, & Stuss, 2009;Vallesi & Shallice, 2007). This view requires that participants have access to the changing hazard as time elapses during the foreperiod, but no one has ever specified how people acquire knowledge of the hazard function and how they are able to subsequently apply it.…”

“…Most inquiries have started from the idea that the increase of temporal preparation is closely related to the hazard function (e.g., Nobre, Correa, & Coull, 2007;Vallesi, Lozano, & Correa, 2013), which describes the increasing conditional probability of S2 occurrence over time, given that it has not occurred yet (e.g., Luce, 1986). In particular, there exists a close reciprocal relationship between current hazard and mean RT across a variety of foreperiod distributions (Coull, 2009;Cui, Stetson, Montague, & Eagleman, 2009;Janssen & Shadlen, 2005;Näätänen, 1971;Trillenberg et al, 2000), which has led to the widespread belief that hazard drives temporal preparation or temporal expectancy (e.g., Coull, Cheng, & Meck, 2011;Niemi & Näätänen, 1981;Stuss et al, 2005;Vallesi et al, 2013;Vallesi & Shallice, 2007).…”