Cargando…

Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account

A warning signal preceding an imperative stimulus by a certain foreperiod can accelerate responses (foreperiod effect). When foreperiod is varied within a block, the foreperiod effect on reaction time (RT) is modulated by both the current and the prior foreperiods. Using a non-aging foreperiod distr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Han, Tianfang, Proctor, Robert W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8989257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35391659
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02476-5
_version_ 1784683129153257472
author Han, Tianfang
Proctor, Robert W.
author_facet Han, Tianfang
Proctor, Robert W.
author_sort Han, Tianfang
collection PubMed
description A warning signal preceding an imperative stimulus by a certain foreperiod can accelerate responses (foreperiod effect). When foreperiod is varied within a block, the foreperiod effect on reaction time (RT) is modulated by both the current and the prior foreperiods. Using a non-aging foreperiod distribution in a simple-reaction task, Capizzi et al. (Cognition, 134, 39-49, 2015) found equal sequential effects for different foreperiods, which they credited to repetition priming. The multiple-trace theory of Los et al. (Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1058, 2014) attributes the slope of the foreperiod-RT function to the foreperiod distribution. We conducted three experiments that examined these predicted relations. Experiment 1 tested Capizzi et al.’s prediction in a choice-reaction task and found an increasing foreperiod-RT function but a larger sequential effect at the shorter foreperiod. Experiment 2 used two distinct short foreperiods with the same foreperiod distribution and found a decreasing foreperiod-RT function. By increasing the difference between the foreperiods used in Experiment 2, Experiment 3 yielded a larger sequential effect overall. The experiments provide evidence that, with a non-aging foreperiod distribution, the variable-foreperiod paradigm yields unequal sequential-effect sizes at the different foreperiods, consistent with the multiple-trace theory but contrary to Capizzi et al.’s repetition-priming account. The foreperiod-RT functions are similar to those of the fixed-foreperiod paradigm, which is not predicted by the multiple trace theory.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8989257
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89892572022-04-11 Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account Han, Tianfang Proctor, Robert W. Atten Percept Psychophys Article A warning signal preceding an imperative stimulus by a certain foreperiod can accelerate responses (foreperiod effect). When foreperiod is varied within a block, the foreperiod effect on reaction time (RT) is modulated by both the current and the prior foreperiods. Using a non-aging foreperiod distribution in a simple-reaction task, Capizzi et al. (Cognition, 134, 39-49, 2015) found equal sequential effects for different foreperiods, which they credited to repetition priming. The multiple-trace theory of Los et al. (Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1058, 2014) attributes the slope of the foreperiod-RT function to the foreperiod distribution. We conducted three experiments that examined these predicted relations. Experiment 1 tested Capizzi et al.’s prediction in a choice-reaction task and found an increasing foreperiod-RT function but a larger sequential effect at the shorter foreperiod. Experiment 2 used two distinct short foreperiods with the same foreperiod distribution and found a decreasing foreperiod-RT function. By increasing the difference between the foreperiods used in Experiment 2, Experiment 3 yielded a larger sequential effect overall. The experiments provide evidence that, with a non-aging foreperiod distribution, the variable-foreperiod paradigm yields unequal sequential-effect sizes at the different foreperiods, consistent with the multiple-trace theory but contrary to Capizzi et al.’s repetition-priming account. The foreperiod-RT functions are similar to those of the fixed-foreperiod paradigm, which is not predicted by the multiple trace theory. Springer US 2022-04-07 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8989257/ /pubmed/35391659 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02476-5 Text en © The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2022 This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Article
Han, Tianfang
Proctor, Robert W.
Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account
title Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account
title_full Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account
title_fullStr Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account
title_full_unstemmed Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account
title_short Revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account
title_sort revisiting variable-foreperiod effects: evaluating the repetition priming account
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8989257/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35391659
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02476-5
work_keys_str_mv AT hantianfang revisitingvariableforeperiodeffectsevaluatingtherepetitionprimingaccount
AT proctorrobertw revisitingvariableforeperiodeffectsevaluatingtherepetitionprimingaccount