Abstract
Parker (2014) argues that contra Woodley, te Nijenhuis, and Murphy (2013), potential secular slowing of simple visual reaction time does not evidence decreasing intelligence, as there are other factors that covary with simple RT performance, not accounted for. These include variable cross-study signal luminance and conflated audio and visual signals. Scrutiny of these two proposed sources suggests that they are unlikely to contribute to either the heterogeneity or the direction of the apparent slowing trend. A sensitivity analysis furthermore indicates that Galton's sample could have been considerably slower than believed (213.85ms) without the secular trend across the six US and UK samples examined in Woodley, te Nijenhuis, and Murphy (2014) becoming non-significant.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
