Abstract
We can use information derived from passing time to anticipate an upcoming event. If time before an event varies, responses towards this event become faster with increasing waiting time. This variable-foreperiod effect has been often observed in response-speed studies. Different action control frameworks assume that response and stimulus features are integrated into an event file that is retrieved later if features repeat. Yet the role of foreperiods has so far not been investigated in action control. Thus, we investigated the influence of foreperiod on the integration of action-perception features. Participants worked through a standard distractor–response binding paradigm where two consecutive responses are made towards target letters while distractor letters are present. Responses and/or distractors can repeat or change from first to second display, leading to partial repetition costs when only some features repeat or repetition benefits when all features repeat (the difference constituting distractor–response binding). To investigate the effect of foreperiod, we also introduced an anti-geometric distribution of foreperiods to the time interval before the first response display. We observed that distractor–response binding increased with increasing foreperiod duration, and speculate that this was driven by an increase in motor readiness induced by temporal expectancy.
Highlights
IntroductionIf time before an event varies, responses towards this event become faster with increasing waiting time
We can use information derived from passing time to anticipate an upcoming event
Responses were slower when waiting times were short (M = 522 ms, SD = 59), but responses were faster when waiting times were long (M = 503 ms, SD = 56). This is further underlined by the Bayes factor: A paired t test yielded a significant difference between the short versus the long foreperiods, t(39) = −6.24, p < .001, d = 0.33, BF01 < 0.01 Table 1
Summary
If time before an event varies, responses towards this event become faster with increasing waiting time. This variable-foreperiod effect has been often observed in response-speed studies. Different action control frameworks assume that response and stimulus features are integrated into an event file that is retrieved later if features repeat. To investigate the effect of foreperiod, we introduced an anti-geometric distribution of foreperiods to the time interval before the first response display. Time supplies us with one important information: the longer we wait, the higher the probability that the light will turn green and we have to act—We can use the temporal information to predict when an event will occur. Previous laboratory studies (e.g., Näätänen, 1970; Woodrow, 1914) show that if foreperiods are varied within a block of trials according to a uniform distribution, reaction times (RT) are longest at short intervals and shortest at longest
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
