Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The published data of 59 visual choice reaction time studies were used to determine the most significant independent variables and to develop empirical functions for them. The functions were then applied in conjunction with a proposed modification of Bonders' law to isolate the relative temporal contributions to choice reaction time of four stages of information processing identified as stimulus coding, stimulus-stimulus translation, stimulus-response translation, and response selection. Of these, coding appears to be a variable component of simple reaction time. This theoretical finding, supported by new data, is not in agreement with Bonders' assumption that simple reaction time is a constant. The results also indicate that choice reaction time is a function of stimulus information, but only up to some amount of practice, after which it is independent of the number of alternatives.An early theoretical approach to the choice reaction time task was that of Bonders (1868-1869) ,* who proposed that the latency involved in choice reactions is the sum of three temporal components: (a) simple reaction time, (b) the time required for stimulus categorization, and (c) the time required for response selection. These processes were hypothesized to be distinct, sequential, and nonoverlapping. Simple reaction time or the a reaction represented the sum of various neural transmission lags, and for any stimulus energy condition it was assumed to be a constant. In order to assess the time required for the other two processes, Bonders developed two experimental paradigms. In one, choice reaction time or the 1 The analysis and theoretical formulation were
The published data of 59 visual choice reaction time studies were used to determine the most significant independent variables and to develop empirical functions for them. The functions were then applied in conjunction with a proposed modification of Bonders' law to isolate the relative temporal contributions to choice reaction time of four stages of information processing identified as stimulus coding, stimulus-stimulus translation, stimulus-response translation, and response selection. Of these, coding appears to be a variable component of simple reaction time. This theoretical finding, supported by new data, is not in agreement with Bonders' assumption that simple reaction time is a constant. The results also indicate that choice reaction time is a function of stimulus information, but only up to some amount of practice, after which it is independent of the number of alternatives.An early theoretical approach to the choice reaction time task was that of Bonders (1868-1869) ,* who proposed that the latency involved in choice reactions is the sum of three temporal components: (a) simple reaction time, (b) the time required for stimulus categorization, and (c) the time required for response selection. These processes were hypothesized to be distinct, sequential, and nonoverlapping. Simple reaction time or the a reaction represented the sum of various neural transmission lags, and for any stimulus energy condition it was assumed to be a constant. In order to assess the time required for the other two processes, Bonders developed two experimental paradigms. In one, choice reaction time or the 1 The analysis and theoretical formulation were
This study investigated the effects of manipulating the response requirement to the second stimulus (S2) on reaction time (RT) to the first stimulus (S1) in a double-stimulation choice RT task. Forty subjects responded to the 100 msec presentation of a left or right light by pressing the key on the same or opposite side as the light. Treatment conditions included a single-stimulation control (no S2 presented), and two double-stimulation conditions each requiring two responses (R1 and R2) in close succession, in one of these latter conditions, the rule governing R2 was the same as that governing R1 while, in the other, the rule governing R2 changed. Results showed the typical double-stimulation effect; i.e., increased latency of R1 when it was followed by S2 - R2. More importantly, R1 latency was increased further when the rules governing R1 and R2 were different. Results are discussed in terms of divided preparation capacity as well as other theories of the psychological refractory period.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.