The dependence of simple reaction time on temporal patterns of stimuli

Schupp, Wiebke; Schlier, Ch.

doi:10.1007/bf00272604

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been known since Woodrow (1914) that when a trial with a certain FP is preceded by a trial with a longer FP, the RT usually is longer than when the preceding FP is equally long or shorter. The finding was later confirmed by numerous studies (Baumeister & Joubert, 1969;Elliott, 1970;Granjon & Reynard, 1977;Karlin, 1959;Klemmer, 1956;Possamai, Granjon, Requin, & Reynard, 1973;Possamai, Granjon, Reynard, & Requin, 1975;Schupp & Schlier, 1972;Stilitz, 1972;Zahn & Rosenthai, 1966;Zahn et al, 1963).…”

Section: Effect Of Previous Foreperiodsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Foreperiod and simple reaction time.

Niemi

Näätänen²

1981

Psychological Bulletin

1,009

877

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of simple visual and auditory reaction processes published since Teichner are reviewed, with emphasis on the preparatory phase of these processes, particularly the foreperiod (FP). The first section consists of the analysis of actual FP variables: duration, regularity, range, distribution, and preceding FPs. The second section deals with factors affecting the relation between FP and reaction time (RT): (a) the modality, intensity, probability, and duration of the warning signal and reaction stimulus (RS) and (b) the speed-accuracy trade-off. It is suggested that the subject's expectancy (momentary probability of the immediate delivery of the RS) is the most important determinant of the preparation to respond to the RS at any moment during a trial and, hence, of RT. Many factors exert their influence on preparation through their effect on expectancy. Other factors have a direct influence on preparation: short-term exhaustion and fatigue, immediate arousal evoked by intense auditory stimuli, the subject's stimulus criterion, the speed-accuracy trade-off, and fluctuation in motor preparedness owing to inaccuracies in the control of motor preparation.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Previous Foreperiodsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Foreperiod and simple reaction time.

Niemi

Näätänen²

1981

Psychological Bulletin

1,009

877

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The intervals vary in duration from trial to trial. Participants are sensitive to differences in the overall frequency of intervals (Della Valle, 1908; Los, Knol, & Boers, 2001; Schupp & Schlier, 1972). In particular, when one of two intervals occurs substantially more frequently than the other one, responses after the frequent one are faster (see Zahn & Rosenthal, 1966; for related findings see also Baumeister & Joubert, 1969; Bevan, Hardesty, & Avant, 1965; see Figure 1b).…”

Section: Time-event Correlationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Time-event Correlationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The time-event correlation effect is due to temporal expectancy, not to partial transition costs.

Thomaschke

Dreisbach

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans are sensitive to temporal redundancies in their environment. When the identity of a target stimulus is correlated with the duration of the preceding interval, performance is better for frequent than for infrequent combinations of target and interval. This effect has been demonstrated several times in current timing research. However, it can be accounted for by 2 starkly contrasting explanations. The standard account has explained it in terms of learning associations between intervals and stimulus-response events. But, alternatively the effect might be due to partial trial transition costs, because infrequent time-event combinations are proportionally more often partial transitions (i.e., transitions of either interval, or target). We conducted 3 choice response time experiments to distinguish between both explanations. The results clearly show that the time-event correlation effect is due to learning, not to partial transition costs.

show abstract

Learning of timing patterns and the development of temporal expectations

Tillmann

Stevens

Keller

2010

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the learning of a culturally unfamiliar musical rhythm, leading to the development of temporal expectations, and it explored the potential for generalization across tempi and tasks. With that aim, we adapted the serial reaction time task to examine the learning of temporal structures by an indirect method. The temporal pattern employed was based on a complex interval ratio (2:3) and compared to one based on a simple interval ratio (1:2). In the exposure phase, non-musician participants performed a two-choice speeded discrimination task that required responding by key press to each event of the simple or complex auditory pattern. Participants were not informed about the temporal regularities; their task solely concerned the discrimination task. During exposure (Experiments 1-3), response times decreased over time for both temporal patterns, but particularly for the events following the longer interval of the more complex 2:3 pattern. Exposure further influenced performance in subsequent testing phases, notably the precision of tap timing in a production task (Experiment 2) and temporal expectations in a perception task (Experiment 3). Our findings promote the new paradigm introduced here as a method to investigate the learning of temporal structures.

show abstract

The dependence of simple reaction time on temporal patterns of stimuli

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Foreperiod and simple reaction time.

Foreperiod and simple reaction time.

The time-event correlation effect is due to temporal expectancy, not to partial transition costs.

Learning of timing patterns and the development of temporal expectations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About