Simple reaction time as a function of time uncertainty.

Klemmer, E. T.

doi:10.1037/h0046227

Cited by 136 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Klemmer (1957) showed that, in a synchronization task in which participants were asked to synchronize their response with the onset of IS, the variance in response latency increased as a function of FP, indicating that a participant's time uncertainty increases as FP increases. In the context of RT tasks, this increase in time uncertainty is assumed to reduce the participant's preparatory state at the imperative moment, which in turn prolongs RT (Gottsdanker, 1970;Klemmer, 1956Klemmer, , 1957Naatanen & Merisalo, 1977;Niemi & Naatanen, 1981). In pure blocks, time uncertainty is the only factor that determines the variation in the preparatory state, which explains the observed RT increase as a function of FP.…”

Section: The Strategic View Of Nonspecific Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation during reaction time foreperiods.

Los¹,

Heuvel²

2001

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

165

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nonspecific preparation that follows a warning stimulus (WS) to speed responding to an impending imperative stimulus (IS) is generally viewed as a strategic, intentional process. An alternative view holds that WS acts as a conditioned stimulus that unintentionally elicits a tendency to respond at the moment of IS presentation as a result of a process of trace conditioning. These views were contrasted as explanatory frameworks for classical effects on reaction time of the duration and intertrial variability of the foreperiod, the interval between WS and IS. It is shown that the conditioning view accounts for the available data at least as well as the strategic view. In addition, the results of 3 experiments provide support for the conditioning view by showing that unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation can be dissociated from intentional contributions.

show abstract

Section: The Strategic View Of Nonspecific Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation during reaction time foreperiods.

Los¹,

Heuvel²

2001

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

165

252

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Information theoretic type of equation like equation (1) by Klemmer (1957) cannot explain existence of optimum FP for a given range. However, the results in this report conform to the theoretical position that expectancy or preparation has an important role in simple RT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Teichner's (1954) review of studies on simple reaction time (RT), optimum foreperiod (FP) of simple RT lies between 1.5 and 8 s. Klemmer (1957) obtained the following equation which relates reaction time to time uncertainty (ar).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual Effect in Simple Reaction Time

Okamoto

1980

Jpn. Psychol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Role of expectancy in simple reaction time was investigated by changing the context in which an imperative stimulus was presented in various foreperiods (FP's). Two experiments were conducted.In experiment I, the range from which FP's were sampled was shifted, and in experiment II, the relative frequencies of various FP's were biased. The results of both experiments supported the assumption that expectancy has an important role in simple reaction time.

show abstract

“…A test will be made of S's ability to synchronize and to make RT responses under this condition. A much better control of time-keeping accuracy should result than by the use of remembered FPs (e.g., Klemmer, 1957). RT may then be related to timekeeping accuracy.…”

Section: Other Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The varied FP method that arose out of the need to prevent synchronization has itself become the object of study with the rise of interest in informational variables in RT. The problem becomes that of the relation of objective time uncertainty to RT (e.g., Klemmer, 1956Klemmer, , 1957Karlin,1959Karlin, ,1966Drazin, 1961). However, use of varied FPs does not seem adequate for this purpose for three reasons.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%