Sequential effects of foreperiod duration and conditional probability of the signal in a choice reaction time task☆
References (16)
The diminishing time uncertainty with the lapse of time after the warning signal in reaction time experiments with varying foreperiods
Acta Psychol.
(1970)Non-aging foreperiods and simple reaction time
Acta Psychol.
(1971)- et al.
The effect of conditional probability of the response signal on simple reaction time
Acta Psychol.
(1969) The time course of preparation after a first peak: some constraints of reacting mechanisms
Quart. J. Exp. Psychol.
(1974)Sequential effects of foreperiod duration: some strategical factors in tasks involving time uncertainty
Effect of foreperiod, foreperiod variability and probability of stimulus occurrence on simple reaction time
J. Exp. Psychol.
(1961)- et al.
Effects of timing signal on simple reaction time with ‘non-aging’ foreperiods
J. Exp. Psychol.
(1973) Reaction time as a function of foreperiod duration and variability
J. Exp. Psychol.
(1959)
Cited by (20)
Dissociable influences of implicit temporal expectation on attentional performance and mind wandering
2020, CognitionCitation Excerpt :Different mechanisms have been proposed to underlie these behavioral foreperiod effects. Strategic accounts posit that an active monitoring system tracks the conditional probability of target occurrence, and adjusts the allocation of attentional resources to moments in time with the highest target probability (Alegria & Delhaye-Rembaux, 1975). In contrast, conditioning accounts propose that attentional strength is adjusted on a trial-by-trial basis, through associative learning mechanisms (Los, Knol, & Boers, 2001).
The role of response inhibition in temporal preparation: Evidence from a go/no-go task
2013, CognitionCitation Excerpt :However, after applying a procedure that allowed them to partial out the contribution of sequential effects, Los and Agter observed that the largest part of the FP-distribution effect was left unexplained. This led them to conclude that this effect is mainly caused by a preparatory influence in addition to, or perhaps overruling, sequential influences (see also Alegria & Delhaye-Rembaux, 1975; Drazin, 1961; Possamaï, Granjon, Reynard, & Requin, 1975; Zahn & Rosenthal, 1966). Vallesi and Shallice (2007) further challenged the trace-conditioning model in the context of a uniform FP-distribution.
Arousal modulates temporal preparation under increased time uncertainty: Evidence from higher-order sequential foreperiod effects
2012, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :However, the classic strategic-preparation view cannot explain the sequential modulation of the FP–RT slope that also occurs across trials. In fact, it has been claimed that the typical FP–RT slope arises (at least to some degree) from this sequential modulation (Alegria & Delhaye-Rembaux, 1975; Los & Agter, 2005). This sequential FP effect refers to the fact that responses on short-FP trials are slower when preceded by a long FP than when preceded by an equally long or shorter one.
Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance
2010, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :This strategic account, however, cannot explain sequential FP effects: Analyses that also considered FP length on the previous trial (FPn−1) as a determinant of RT revealed that responses are relatively fast when the previous trial’s FP was short but are relatively slow when the previous trial’s FP was long. ( e.g., Alegria & Delhaye-Rembaux, 1975; Karlin, 1959; Steinborn, Rolke, Bratzke, & Ulrich, 2008, 2009; Vallesi & Shallice, 2007; Van der Lubbe, Los, Jaskowski, & Verleger, 2004; Woodrow, 1914). These sequential FP effects are usually asymmetric, since RT is more strongly affected in trials with short FPs compared to trials with longer FPs, producing a typical FPn−1 × FPn interaction (see Fig. 1).
Dynamic adjustment of temporal preparation: Shifting warning signal modality attenuates the sequential foreperiod effect
2009, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :Specifically, it is assumed that the individuals learn the temporal relationship between WS and IS in a trial-by-trial manner. Accordingly, the downward-sloping FP-RT function is considered to arise largely from sequential effects (Alegria & Delhaye-Rembaux, 1975; Los & Agter, 2005), which refers to the fact that RT in a current trial not only depends on the current FP (i.e., FPn) but also on FP of the immediately preceding trial (i.e., FPn−1). Specifically, responses in a short FPn trial are slower when preceded by a long FPn−1 than when preceded by an equally long or shorter FPn−1 trial (e.g., Karlin, 1959; Klemmer, 1956; Steinborn, Rolke, Bratzke, & Ulrich, 2008; Vallesi et al., 2007; Vallesi & Shallice, 2007; Van der Lubbe, Los, Jaskowski, & Verleger, 2004; Van Koningsbruggen & Rafal, 2009).
- ☆
This work has been carried out under the direction of Professor P. Bertelson. It has been supported by the Belgian ‘Fonds de la Recherche Fondamentale Collective’ under contracts 612 and 10.152.