Prediction outcome and choice reaction time: Inhibition versus facilitation effects

Geller, E. Scott

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(75)90022-0

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Cue Effect was significant (P<0.01) for all of the trial type paired contrasts. Reactions were slower when the probe response was invalidly cued (338 ms) than when an uninformative cue was provided (311 ms), showing the typical latency cost associated with inappropriate preparation (e.g., Geller, 1974Geller, , 1975.…”

Section: Invalid Cue Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The locus and modulation of the location negative priming effect

Guy

Buckolz

2006

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responding to the location of a target is slower when it appears at a recent distractor location [ignored-repetition (IR) trial] than when it arises at a new position [control (CO) trial], defining the location negative priming (NP) effect. On IR trials, both the distractor location and response are from the prior trial, and the locus question asks whether the delayed responding that arises is caused by the reused distractor position (i.e., a location locus) or the need to execute a distractor output (i.e., a response locus). A location NP procedure was used, incorporating a many:1 location-to-response mapping design, along with a response cue on some trials. A response locus for the location NP effect was indicated. Distractor-turned-target responses took longer to initiate than new outputs (many:1 paradigm), and valid response cues reduced distractor response interference and the location NP effect. Importantly, a possible S-R compatibility problem within the many:1 S-R paradigm was not supported.

show abstract

Section: Invalid Cue Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The locus and modulation of the location negative priming effect

Guy

Buckolz

2006

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional procedural difference between the present experiment and previous studies concerns the role of neutral primes. In Geller's (1975) experiments subjects did not make a "neutral" prediction, while subjects in the other studies said "ready" (e.g., Hinrichs, 1970). Thus, in addition to examining the time course of expectancy produced by cues and predictions, the first experiment allowed an assessment of cost-benefit functions for both procedures.…”

Section: Also Found Inconsistent Amounts Of Facilitation and Interfermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cost-benefit analysis, developed by Posner (Posner & Snyder, 1975) has not been applied to "long" prime-stimulus intervals nor has it been seriously applied in the prediction research. The studies (Craft & Hinrichs, 1975;Geller, 1975;Hinrichs, 1970;Hinrichs & Craft, 1971) dealing with the cost-benefit issue in the prediction literature have not considered systematically the possible effects of prime-stimulus intervals and neutral signals. Furthermore, the results of these studies have not produced consistent results.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subjective and Objective Determinants of Expectancy: Similarities and Differences

Acosta¹

1982

The American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On a lesser note, we did replicate a classic cue effect whereby RT (valid cue) < RT (uninformative cue) < RT (invalid cue), reflective of a benefit-cost impact of informative cueing and indicating that our subjects used the cue information provided (e.g., Geller, 1974;1975). Additionally, we did see that delays encountered when target identity changes occur on successive prime-probe trials could not be removed when they were fully predictable; their related RTs were still significantly slower than for predictable target identity repeats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Detecting Target Identity—Location/Response Binding in Visuo-spatial Tasks Using a Cueing Procedure: An Exploratory Study

Kajaste¹,

Buckolz²

2018

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to determine the suitability of a "new" procedure for detecting the existence of binding between a target's identity and its location/response during its processing on a prime trial in a visuo-spatial task. Importantly, the method involved cueing the impending likelihood of a binding violation on a subsequent probe trial. If the latency increasing impact of a binding violation can be reduced or removed when the cue proved to be valid, RT reductions for Conditions that involved a binding violation would show a larger latency decrease than those which did not (relative to uninformative cue trials). This result pattern did not occur, even though data showed that the cue information was used for preparation (RT [valid cue] < RT [uninformative cue] > RT [invalid cue]). Either a target identity-location/response binding does not occur, or advance knowledge of its impending violation does not modulate the violation's latency increase impact. In any event, the use of the cue procedure employed here to detect binding is not a viable one.

show abstract

Prediction outcome and choice reaction time: Inhibition versus facilitation effects

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

The locus and modulation of the location negative priming effect

The locus and modulation of the location negative priming effect

Subjective and Objective Determinants of Expectancy: Similarities and Differences

Detecting Target Identity—Location/Response Binding in Visuo-spatial Tasks Using a Cueing Procedure: An Exploratory Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About