Prediction outcome and choice reaction time: Stimulus versus response anticipation.

Abstract

Choice latency was significantly influenced by the outcome of 5s' predictions on current and preceding trials in a discrete three-stimulus, two-response reaction time (RT) experiment. Three mutually exclusive categories of prediction outcome (PO) were correct stimulus and response prediction (CoS-CoR), incorrect stimulus and correct response prediction (InS-CoR), and incorrect stimulus and response prediction (InS-InR), Mean RTs of the current PO category, CoS-CoR, were significantly faster when the preceding PO was CoS-CoR. Mean RTs following an InS-CoR prediction were faster than RTs following an InS-InR prediction only when the preceding PO was InS-CoR. These results were interpreted as indications of the facilitation of the stimulus-identification or the response-selection components of the choice reaction process. The implications of an interaction between preceding PO and the complexity of the S-R relationship were discussed.

Effects of running exercises on reaction time and working memory in individuals with intellectual disability

“…Nevertheless, in individuals without ID, perception of effort could lead to adopt the voluntary cognitive function, which is more thoughtful or controlled and slowly to avoid mistakes, so that the RT could be disturbed. In fact, the response preparation may be disruptive if its timing is inappropriate because of the extra delay due to incorrect anticipation (Whitman and Geller 1972).…”

Stimulus and response prediction in choice reaction time: Free vs. forced reactions

“…Clearly, the time required to decide among the alternatives will be reduced by advance information, whether in the form of subjective predictions (Bernstein & Reese, 1965;Hinrichs & Krainz, 1970;Keele, 1969;Whitman & Geller, 1972;Williams, 1966) or experimenterprovided cues (LaBerge, Van Gelder, & Yellott, 1970). A question critical to the understanding of the role of expectancy in information processing is the nature of the subject's anticipation: does one anticipate perceiving a particular stimulus or prepare to execute a particular response?…”

Probability discrimination indicated by stimulus prediction and reaction speed: Effects of S-R compatibility.

“…A majority of studies have implicated the stimulus identification process to a greater extent than the response selection process as the source of variance due to changes in probability or prediction outcome. That is, changes in stimulus probability rather than response probability determined most of the "probability effect" (Bertelson & Tisseyre, 1966;Hawkins & Hosking, 1969;Hawkins, Thomas, & Drury, 1970), and correct anticipation of the stimulus rather than the response resulted in the prediction outcome effect (Hinrichs & Krainz, 1970;Whitman & Geller, 1972).…”