Prediction outcome probabilities as determinants of choice reaction time

Abstract

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.

Expectation mismatch: Differences between self-generated and cue-induced expectations

“…Analogously, stimuli that are preceded by correct cues generally lead to faster responses than invalidly cued stimuli (e.g., Posner and Snyder, 1975;Mattler, 2004). Both, for self-generated as well as cueinduced expectations, mismatch effects increase if the expectation is confirmed on a larger proportion of trials, i.e., is more valid (predictions: e.g., Whitman and Geller, 1973; cues: e.g., Acosta, 1982;LaBerge et al, 1970). Furthermore, stimulus repetition benefits are reduced if the self-generated (Whitman and Geller, 1972) or cueinduced expectation (LaBerge et al, 1970) matches the stimulus.…”

The locus and modulation of the location negative priming effect

“…On valid precue trials, correct response selection is done in advance, thereby reducing or eliminating the output selection time differences between compatible and incompatible S-R pairs. Thus, RT differences between compatibility levels ought to be reduced on valid precue, relative to no-cue, trials (e.g., Buckolz & Rugins, 1981;Keele, 1969;Whitman & Geller, 1974). Should the cue effect show that both DRR and IR trial type latencies are equally improved by correct a priori response selection, it would set aside the S-R compatibility concern tied to the DRR trial types and, concomitantly, would not stand in opposition to the use of the traditional contrasts used in the many:1 S-R paradigm to determine locus effects (i.e., with no-cue trials).…”

“…First and foremost, it argues against the proposition that the association strength between target location and the required response on distractor-response repetition (DRR) trials is less than that for the other trial types (IR, CO). Lesser degrees of S-R compatibility should benefit more when the required output is validly cued, and so selected in advance (Buckolz & Rugins, 1981;Keele, 1969;Whitman & Geller, 1974). The fact that the latency reduction produced for the DRR and IR trial types was the same (i.e., 33 ms vs. 34 ms, Table 2) when the probe response was correctly cued indicates that the S-R compatibility levels for these two trial types is about the same.…”

Preceding prediction outcome and prediction outcome probability: Interacting determinants of choice reaction time.

“…In a recent study, Whitman and Geller (1973) manipulated the probability of a correct prediction between 5s and found RT to be an inverse function of the predic-tion probabilities .10, .30, .50, .70, and .90 when 5"s stimulus prediction was correct, but RT was not significantly influenced by the probability of a correct prediction when S's prediction was incorrect. The hypotheses proposed herein were supported by only half of the data in that study (i.e., RTs to correctly predicted stimuli).…”