Expectancy and discrete reaction time in a probability reversal design.

Geller, E. Scott; Whitman, Charles P.; Wrenn, Richard F.; Shipley, William G.

doi:10.1037/h0031336

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Priming may also account for the data obtained in two-choice reaction time paradigms (e.g., Geller, Whitman, Wrenn, & Shipley, 1971;Kirby, 1972;Remington, 1969;Schvaneveldt & Chase, 1969; see also Kowler, Martins, & Pavel, 1984), which show an orderly treelike arrangement. In these paradigms, each repetition of the stimulus produces a faster response, and alternation produces a slower response (indeed, our data produced the same kind of an orderly "tree" for the attentionfocusing feature when we analyzed all possible fifthorder sequences).…”

Section: Related Literature On Sequential Trial Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined a visual search task, in which observers responded to the high-acuityaspect of a popout target (shape of an odd-colored diamond or vernier offset of an odd spatial-frequency patch). Repetition of the attention-driving feature (color or spatial frequency) in this task primes the popout; repetition of the high-acuity aspect (shape, vernier offset) does not. Priming of pop-out is due to a decaying memory trace of the attention-focusing feature laid down with each trial. The trace exerts a diminishing effect over the following five to eight trials (-30 sec), and its influence over this time is cumulative. Observers cannot willfully overcome the priming, which suggests that it is passive and autonomous. Both target facilitation and distractor inhibition are evident; the former has a greater effect. The phenomenon shows complete binocular transfer.In a typical visual search experiment, the observer's task is to detect the presence of the odd target within a field of distractors. Two well-known effects have been observed. Serial search is the term attributed to the finding that an increasing number ofdistractors increases the time necessary to find the target, yielding positive slope functions (Sagi & Julesz, 1985;Treisman & Gelade, 1980). Parallel search is the term attributed to the finding that the target is detected equally quickly regardless of the number of distractors, yielding flat reaction time versus distractor number functions. In this situation, the target also "pops out"; that is, attention is automatically drawn to the odd item. The flat functions and the presence of"pop-out" were generally assumed to be causally related. Bravo and Nakayama (1992), however, dissociated these two aspects by adding an additional requirement to the task, which tapped into its attention-focusing aspect. They asked observers to respond to the shape of the odd-colored target, not its presence or absence. It was their claim that responding to the shape necessitates the spatial focusing of attention to the odd target. As such, this task examines the characteristics of attention focusing in pop-out. In contrast, the previously used presence versus absence task does not require the focusing of attention and is not informative regarding the deployment of focal attention.Drawing on theoretical accounts of attentional guidance, Bravo and Nakayama (1992) made a number of experimental predictions. To start, they reviewed two general processes that would be useful for focusing atThis work was supported by AFOSR Grant F49620-92-J-0016 to K.N. We thank Shinsuke Shimojo for his comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. V.Maljkovic is now in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Correspondence should be addressed to K. Nakayama,

show abstract

Section: Related Literature On Sequential Trial Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of their basic assumptions was that Ss' expectancy for a correctly predicted stimulus was a direct function of Ss' confidence that their stimulus prediction would be correct. Thus, the results of recent choice RT experiments were explained by assuming Ss' confidence in a prediction to be greater when the more probable stimulus was predicted (Geller, Whitman, Wrenn, & Shipley, 1971;Geller et al, 1972) and when the immediately preceding prediction had been correct .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction outcome probabilities as determinants of choice reaction time

Whitman

Geller

1973

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a two-stimulus two-response choice reaction time (RT) task in which Ss made stimulus predictions, the probability of a correct prediction was manipulated between Ss. The magnitude of the difference in RT to correctly and incorrectly predicted stimuli (i.e., the prediction outcome effect) was an increasing function of the probability of a correct prediction. This finding was primarily due to a reliable decrease in RT to correctly predicted stimuli as the probability of a correct prediction increased, since RT to incorrectly predicted stimuli was not affected by prediction outcome probability. These results were interpreted as partially supporting a continuous expectancy notion which involves facilitory and inhibitory mechanisms which are differentially influenced by the probability of a correct prediction.

show abstract

“…Since frequent events are correctly expected more often than infrequent ones (Myers, 1976), and reaction times (RTs) are less to expected stimuli than to unexpected ones (Bernstein & Reese, 1967), this hypothesis is at least plausible. The observation of a probability effect when prediction outcome has been controlled (e.g., Geller, Whitman, Wrenn, & Shipley, 1971;Hinrichs & Craft, 1971) does not refute the hypothesis, since this "residual" probability effect may have a purely postperceptuallocus. In other words, expectancy may underlie the probability effect at encoding, while some other mechanism is responsible for the effect at later processing stages.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The implied distinction between expectancy effects (discussed above) and sequential effects is supported by the observation by Schvaneveldt and Chase (1969) that predictions of ensuing stimuli did not correspond well with sequential effects on RT. Also, Geller and Pitz (1970) and Geller et al (1971) observed effects of run length with prediction outcome held constant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of stimulus sequence and probability on perceptual processing

Hansen

Well

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments that tested the hypothesis that the effect of stimulus presentation probability on perceptual processing is a function of the preceding stimulus sequence are reported. Replicating previous findings, the magnitude of the probability effect was affected by stimulus quality. The interaction was unchanged when sequential effects were eliminated from the data. Stimulus quality and sequence displayed an additive relationship. These results suggest that the probability effect on perceptual processing is not an indirect result of sequential effects. Together with the results of Miller and Anbar (1981), they suggest that practice gradually acts to facilitate the perceptual processing of highly probable stimuli.

show abstract

Expectancy and discrete reaction time in a probability reversal design.

Cited by 21 publications

References 16 publications

Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features

Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features

Prediction outcome probabilities as determinants of choice reaction time

The effects of stimulus sequence and probability on perceptual processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About