Serial reaction time as a function of the nature of repeated events.

Ells, Jerry G.; Gotts, Gordon

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.2.234

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the effect is perceptual, on the other hand, the effect should persist. Ells and Gotts (1977) reported an experiment with some similarities to this. In their study, subjects performed a Sternberg memory-scanning task of a go-no-go variety, responding whenever the probe belonged to the memory set.…”

Section: Experiments 6: Repetition and Response Modalitymentioning

confidence: 67%

Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks.

Pashler

Baylis²

1991

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

230

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated that subjects' responses in a speeded-choice task are affected by the sequence of stimuli and responses. Generally, responses are faster when the same stimulus is repeated. There is disagreement in the literature concerning whether or not this effect represents a speedup of perception, response execution, or central stages of processing. The first 5 experiments reported here demonstrate that the effect is quite stimulus specific: A succession of different stimuli that call for the same response produces little repetition benefit, unless the stimuli differ only in very superficial ways (e.g., in color). Increasing the intertrial interval from 100 ms to 1000 ms attenuates these repetition effects only slightly. These results would be consistent with a perceptual locus for the repetition effect, but Experiment 6 shows that if the response mapping changes from trial to trial, the advantage for stimulus repetitions is abolished. The results indicate that locus of the repetition effect is at the stage of response selection. However, the stimulus specificity of the effects indicates that immediate repetitions produce or strengthen transient links that "shortcut" the response-selection stage. By contrast, the results of Pashler and Baylis (1991) indicate that practice primarily strengthens response selection at the categorical level rather than shortcutting it. One implication of the results is that the practice effect is not created simply by the accumulation of the traces responsible for repetition effects.

show abstract

Section: Experiments 6: Repetition and Response Modalitymentioning

confidence: 67%

Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks.

Pashler

Baylis²

1991

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

230

300

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of studies have found little direct benefit of response repetition, except when it has been accompanied by stimulus repetition (e.g., Ells & Gotts, 1977;Fletcher & Rabbitt, 1978;Krueger & Shapiro, 1981). Subjects may tend to repeat the same response if they recognize the current stimulus as similar to a previous one, bypassing the normal processes for response selection (Bertelson, 1963(Bertelson, , 1965.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does “inhibition of return” occur in discrimination tasks?

Terry

Valdes

Neill

1994

Perception & Psychophysics

135

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, other work failed to identify systematic facilitation associated with response repetition when the stimulus does not repeat (Ells & Gotts, 1977;Hinrichs & Krainz, 1970;Li & A. F. Smith, 1992; M. C. Smith, 1968;Williams, 1966). Fletcher (1981) concluded that the presence or absence of repetition effects depends on practice: Early in practice, subjects displaya strong stimulus repetition effect, which progresses into a response repetition effect later in practice (see also Bertelson, 1965;Rabbitt, 1968).…”

Section: Sequence Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Range effects of an irrelevant dimension on classification

Huettel

Lockhead

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In univariate classification tasks, subjects sort stimuli on the basis of the only attribute that varies. In orthogonal classification tasks, often calledfiltering tasks, there additionally are trial-to-trial variations in irrelevant attributes that the subjects are instructed to ignore. Performance is generally slower in filtering tasks than in univariate control tasks. Weinvestigated this slowing in experiments of how the range of irrelevant trial-to-trial variation affects responses in pitch/loudness classification tasks. Using two levels of pitch and of loudness as stimuli, Experiment 1 replicated prior work showing that responses are slowed more when the range of the irrelevant dimension is made larger. Also in Experiment 1,sequential analyses showed that response time depends both on sequence and on the stimulus set independent of sequence. Experiments 2 and 3 used several levels on the irrelevant dimension and showed that responses to categorize loudness are slowed more by larger trial-to-trial pitch differences, but only on trials when the response repeats. When the response changes, performance is essentially unaffected by trial-to-trial irrelevant variation. This interaction supports the conclusion that slowed average performance in orthogonal classification tasks, which is known as Garner interference, is not due to difficulties that subjects have in filtering stimulus attributes. It is due to how subjects process successive stimulus differences. Wecall for more frequent reports of sequential analyses, because these can reveal information that is not available from data averages.Often, people cannot ignore irrelevant information when they classify a stimulus attribute. For example, when people are asked to classify auditory tones according to pitch, their performance is worse (slower and with more errors) when the timbre of the tone varies randomly between trials than if the timbre remains fixed between trials (Crowder, 1989). Irrelevant variation in loudness similarly interferes with performance when tones are classified according to pitch (Lockhead, 1992b;Melara & Mounts, 1994).This result-the fact that irrelevant variation on one dimension interferes with classification on another dimension-is called Garner interference (Gamer, 1974). Whenever there is such interference, the stimulus dimensions interact, which is contrary to what should occur if people could abstract a feature from a stimulus and process it independently ofother features, as Stevens (1975) proposed. There have been many attempts to understand this apparent interference (Garner, 1970; Lockhead, 1966 Lockhead, , 1992bMelara & Marks, 1990;Melara & O'Brien, 1987;Pomerantz & Garner, 1973;Shepard, 1964), none of which was fully successful. Each ofthese attempts addressed characteristics of individual stimuli, and all of these experimental approaches compared average perforThis research was partially supported by a National Science Foundation fellowship to S.A.H. Correspondence should be addressed to S. A. Huettel, Department of Psycho...

show abstract

Serial reaction time as a function of the nature of repeated events.

Cited by 18 publications

References 16 publications

Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks.

Procedural learning: II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks.

Does “inhibition of return” occur in discrimination tasks?

Range effects of an irrelevant dimension on classification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About