Prediction of choice reaction time from information of individual stimuli

Effects of average uncertainty and trial-type frequency on choice response time: A hierarchical extension of Hick/Hyman Law

“…2. As can be seen (and consistent with previous findings; e.g., Kaufman et al, 1970), neither model provided an adequate fit, although p(i) was approaching an acceptable level. The stronger test used only the data from the common-frequency conditions, because all simple models must predict that these three conditions would produce the same mean RT, as all would have the same predictor value, regardless of how trial frequency was being quantified.…”

“…The second set of data is from Experiment 2 in Kaufman et al (1970), which used the same general task as above but also varied the number of response alternatives between two, four, and eight. This greatly expanded the range of values for average uncertainty (H = 0.54, 0.74, 0.90, 1.79, and 2.40), which helps to correct for the relative narrow range of values in both the present work and that of Kaufman and Lamb (1966).…”

“…That Hyman and others have examined the fits to specific trial-types and found them to be poor does not change the success of the law in predicting performance at the level of blocks. However, attempts to model performance at both the block and trial-type level in terms of a single predictor, such as h(i) or p(i), have consistently failed (see, e.g., Fig 2), even when rather complicated approaches have been adopted (e.g., Kaufman, Lamb, & Walter, 1970).…”

Predicting Human Performance IV: Choice Reaction Time

“…Accordinglv, CRT should be a function of amount of information for unecual probability alternatives as well as for equal probability ones as already showm. The results of Hyman (1953), Lamb and Kaufman (1965) and Kaufman, Lamb, and Walter (1970) support that expectation, t .t due to the confound.ngs noted in Figure 10, 're were not able to test it.…”

“…Studies in which stimulus nrobability was maninulated (e.g., lyman, 1953! Bertelson andBarzelle, 1960;Mowbray, 1964;YAufman, 1965, Kaufman, Lamb andWalter, 1970;Kaufman and .evy, 1966) have demonstrated that, for a constant NA., higher probability stimuli are associated with smaller CRTs than those occurring with lower probability. The notion that the effects of stimulus probability are independent of the relationship between N A and CRT is questionable considerinl the results of Broadbent and Gregory (1965) who showed that CRT to a stimulus occurring on 75 per cent of the trials Yas greater when it was part of a four-alternative set than when it was part of a twlo-alternative set.…”