2012
DOI: 10.2466/22.23.25.pms.115.5.415-426
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transfer Effects of Manipulating Temporal Constraints on Learning a Two-Choice Reaction Time Task with Low Stimulus-Response Compatibility

Abstract: Recent research using deliberate amplification of spatial errors to increase motor learning leads to the question of whether amplifying temporal errors may also facilitate learning. We investigated transfer effects caused by manipulating temporal constraints on learning a two-choice reaction time (CRT) task with varying degrees of stimulus-response compatibility. Thirty-four participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups and completed 120 trials during acquisition. For every fourth trial, one g… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In each trial, participants had to focus on a centrally presented fixation cross, which was amid two quadratic frames. A plus sign appeared either in the left or in the right frame (e.g., Chen et al, 2012). Participants had to state whether the plus appeared in the left or in the right frame by pressing one of two response keys on the keyboard.…”
Section: Processing Speedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In each trial, participants had to focus on a centrally presented fixation cross, which was amid two quadratic frames. A plus sign appeared either in the left or in the right frame (e.g., Chen et al, 2012). Participants had to state whether the plus appeared in the left or in the right frame by pressing one of two response keys on the keyboard.…”
Section: Processing Speedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there was no significant variance in the common executive functions factor independent of task-general speed of information uptake, σ 2 = − 0.00, p = 0.913, 95% CI [− 0.07, 0.06]. Given the small negative and non-significant residual variance of the common executive functions factor, we followed the recommendations by Chen et al ( 2012 ) and fixed this residual variance to zero. This hardly changed the model fit, ∆ AIC = 1.99, χ 2 (54) = 114.15, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.09, 95% CI [0.06, 0.11] (see Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the next step, we wanted to assess if the relationship between the variance specific to executive functions and intelligence as well as WMC pertained if we controlled for task-general speed of information uptake by introducing a latent speed factor to the model. This speed factor represented the covariance of Given the small negative and non-significant residual variance of the common executive functions factor, we followed the recommendations by Chen et al (2012) and fixed this residual variance to zero. This hardly changed the model fit, ∆ AIC = 1.99, χ 2 (54) = 114.15, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.09, 95% CI [0.06, 0.11] (see Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the Two Choice Reaction Time task, participants saw a fixation-cross in the middle of the screen, which was surrounded by one quadratic frame on its left and one quadratic frame on its right side. In each trial, a plus sign appeared in ERP measures of executive functions one of these frames and participants had to indicate whether this plus appeared in the left or in the right frame by pressing one of two keys on the keyboard (Chen et al, 2012). The plus sign appeared equally often in both frames.…”
Section: Elementary Cognitive Tasks (Ects)mentioning
confidence: 99%