Response Time to a First Signal as a Function of Time Relationship to a Second Signal and Mode of Presentation

1971 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 811-816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelline M. Burns ◽  
Herbert Moskowitz
Keyword(s):  
Response Time ◽  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Time Sharing ◽  
Random Presentation ◽  
Time Relationship ◽  
Processing Mechanisms ◽  
Channel Theory ◽  
Support Time

Using a random presentation of inter-stimulus intervals between stimulus 1 and stimulus 2 in a psychological refractory period paradigm, this experiment permitted comparison of data obtained earlier using a block presentation. With 10 male Ss per study, response time to stimulus 1 increased at higher inter-stimulus intervals under block presentations but not under random presentations. The results are interpreted to support time-sharing between the processing mechanisms of the two stimuli rather than a single channel theory.

The Psychological Refractory Period as a Function of Performance of a First Response

1967 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 350-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Refractory Period ◽  
Motor Response ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Expectancy Theory ◽  
Response Component ◽  
First Response ◽  
Motor Component ◽  
Channel Theory

Proponents of a “single channel” theory of the psychological refractory period have not specified whether the single channel occupies only the decision component of the response selection, only the motor or response component, or both. In this experiment, the delay in the RT to the second of two successively presented stimuli was examined as a function of whether or not an overt motor response was made to the first stimulus, keeping the decision component constant. It was found that in both conditions RT2 was delayed, suggesting that the decision component was a part of the single channel. However, RT2 was delayed by a significantly greater amount if a motor response was required, indicating that the motor component is part of the single channel as well. Implications of the results for an expectancy theory of the psychological refractory period are discussed.

Response Time to the Second of Two Successive Signals as a Function of Absolute and Relative Duration of Intersignal Interval

1965 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond S. Nickerson
Keyword(s):  
Response Time ◽  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Relative Duration ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Variable Duration ◽  
The Absolute

An experiment was conducted to determine whether both the absolute and the relative duration of the S1-S2 interval would affect the response time to the second of two successive signals (RT2) separated by an interval of brief but variable duration. Four different experimental conditions sampled different but overlapping ranges of intervals, thus allowing comparisons between RTs obtained with intervals of the same absolute but different relative durations, and conversely, with the same relative but different absolute durations. Under these conditions, RT2 varied inversely with both the absolute and the relative duration of interval over the range of intervals generally associated with psychological refractory period.

The Psychological Refractory Period and Vertex Evoked Potentials

1972 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Boddy
Keyword(s):  
Refractory Period ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Random Sequence ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Central Processor ◽  
Sensory Evoked Potential ◽  
Sensory Evoked ◽  
Simple Rt

The averaged sensory evoked potential (EP) was recorded from the scalp (vertex to mastoid) in a psychological refractory period experiment in which 12 young adults participated. Reaction times (RTs) were measured to either both or only the second of pairs of stimuli, in different trial blocks, with inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs) of 100, 200, 300 and 400 msec occurring in random sequence. EPs were recorded at each ISI. No latency changes could be found in the prominent non-specific components (P1–N1–P2) of the EP to stimulus 2 even at ISIs where the RT was substantially delayed. Thus the notions that the RT2 delay is due to occupation of a single channel central processor by S1 and that non-specific EP components reflect the time course of information processing in underlying neural tissue, do not lend each other mutual support. Furthermore, as profound amplitude refractoriness in components P1–N1 and N1–P2 persisted at ISIs where RT was as fast or faster than simple RT, there appears to be a dissociation between “psychological refractoriness” and “physiological refractoriness”. The implications of these results are discussed.

The psychological refractory period: Evidence for age differences in attentional time-sharing.

1998 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip A. Allen ◽  
Albert F. Smith ◽  
Heli Vires-Collins ◽  
Susan Sperry
Keyword(s):  
Age Differences ◽  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Time Sharing

scholarly journals Individual differences effects on the psychological refractory period

SpringerPlus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maude Laguë-Beauvais ◽  
Christine Gagnon ◽  
Nathalie Castonguay ◽  
Louis Bherer
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period

Effect of Complexity of the Second Response on Reaction Time to the First Response in the Psychological Refractory Period Paradigm

1987 ◽  
Vol 64 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1075-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig J. Chamberlin
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Refractory Period ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period ◽  
Parallel Model ◽  
Relative Complexity ◽  
Central Processing ◽  
Psychological Refractory Period Paradigm ◽  
First Response ◽  
Grouping Effect ◽  
Flexible Model

An attempt to distinguish serial from parallel models of central processing was made by manipulating the relative complexity of R2 and observing the effect of this manipulation on RT1 in the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm. 14 subjects performed under two conditions, either a simple or complex R2. Experimental controls were used to prevent a possible grouping effect of responses. The results did not support a parallel model of central processing but did support a serial view. Implications of results, combined with previous findings, for a more flexible model of central processing were discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document