The effects of differential amounts of stimulus familiarization on choice reaction time performance in children

Miller, Frank D.

doi:10.1016/0022-0965(69)90032-0

Cited by 9 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analysis of travel speed revealed no significant differences for stimulus type, F(\, 19) = .26. This finding is also in accord with the findings of several stimulus-familiarization effect studies with children, which have partitioned reaction time into releaseand travel-speed components (Cantor & Cantor, 1964;Cantor & Fenson, 1968;Miller, 1969;Witte, 1967). The only significant effect revealed in this analysis was trial block, F(4, 76) = 2.94, p < .05, but further comparisons did not uncover differences between any pair of trial blocks.…”

Section: Travel Speedsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Cantor (1969) has suggested that the number of familiarization trials used by Meyers and Joseph may have been too few to produce the effect. An early study with children (Cantor & Cantor, 1966) had found the effect with just five familiarization trials, but later research (Miller, 1969;Cantor & Fenson, 1968) failed to confirm this finding and indicated instead that about 20 trials are necessary.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A two-factor theory of stimulus-repetition effects.

Kraut¹,

Smothergill²

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is a well-documented finding that children respond more slowly to a stimulus that has been presented repeatedly just before test than to a novel stimulus. The effect, for which a two-factor theory has recently been proposed, did not occur in the only previous study of adults using a comparable procedure. Experiment 1 demonstrated the effect with adults. The previous negative finding may have been the result of too few repetitions of the stimulus. Experiment 2 provided additional support for the two-factor theory. The theory suggests that the effect is the net result of partially counteracting changes in two attentional processes. One process, the alertness elicited by a stimulus, is held to decrease as a result of repeated presentation of the stimulus, while the second process, encoding, is facilitated. The hypothesis tested in Experiment 2 was that the alertness decrement dissipates over a brief passage of time, while the facilitation of encoding does not. Subjects exposed to a repeatedly presented color were tested either immediately thereafter or after a 15-min or 30-min interval. As predicted, the observed effect shifted from one of flower response to one of faster response to the repeated stimulus as the delay interval increased.

show abstract

Section: Travel Speedsupporting

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A two-factor theory of stimulus-repetition effects.

Kraut¹,

Smothergill²

1978

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bogartz and Witte (1966) have labeled this phenomenon the change effect. The experimental findings with children generally indicate that the locus of the change effect is not in the stimulus processing stage, since a change effect occurs only when separate responses are re-quired to each of the two stimuli and never when the same response is required to both (Bogartz & Witte, 1966;Cantor, 1969;F. Miller, 1969;Witte & Cantor, 1967).…”

Section: Sequential Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effect of stimulus familiarity on reaction time has recently received considerable investigation from developmental psychologists (Bogartz & Witte, 1966;Cantor, 1969;Cantor & Cantor, 1965F. Miller, 1969;Witte & Cantor, 1967).…”

Section: Stimulus Familiaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bogartz and Witte (1966) have labeled this phenomenon the stimulus familiarity effect. The stimulus familiarity effect appears with equal magnitude whether different or the same responses are required to the two stimuli (Bogartz & Witte, 1966;Cantor & Cantor, 1966;Cantor & Fenson, 1968;F. Miller, 1969), and stimulus familiarity generally has been found to have no effect on movement time (Bogartz & Witte, 1966;Cantor & Fenson, 1968;F.…”

Section: Stimulus Familiaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal limits of human information processing: A developmental study.

Wickens¹

1974

Psychological Bulletin

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A schematic model of the human information processing system is presented, and, within this framework, differences between adults and children in information processing limits are discussed. It is tentatively concluded that some irreducible maturational differences in processing rate are present, along with differences due to nonprocessing factors of incentive, motivation, attentiveness, and practice. The following areas of investigation of rapid information processing are discussed as they relate to reported or potential developmental research: tachistoscopic recognition, visual search, stimulus familiarity, stimulus sequential effects, choice reaction time, and central channel limitations. Tentative conclusions are drawn concerning possible loci in the processing model of age differences in processing rate capacity.

show abstract