Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 522–526 | Cite as

Temporal uncertainty degrades perceptual processing

  • Bettina Rolke
  • Peter Hofmann
Brief Reports

Abstract

When participants are required to react to a stimulus, reaction times (RTs) are usually reduced when temporal uncertainty about stimulus occurrence is minimized. Contrary to the common assumption attributing this RT benefit solely to the speeding of motor processes, recent evidence suggests that temporal uncertainty might rather influence premotoric processing levels. We employed a backward-masking procedure to further confine the locus of the temporal uncertainty effect. Participants performed a discrimination task and indicated whether a spatial gap within a square was on the right or the left side. In addition to the shorter RTs, visual discrimination accuracy was improved when temporal uncertainty was low. This result demonstrates that temporal uncertainty influences stimulus processing at a perceptual level.

Keywords

Warning Signal Attentional Blink Simple Reaction Time Contingent Negative Variation Stimulus Processing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bachmann, T., &Allik, J. (1976). Integration and interruption in the masking of form by form.Perception,5, 79–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., Hackley, S. A., &Ulrich, R. (2006). The locus of temporal preparation effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 536–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonnel, A.-M., Possamaï, C.-A., &Schmitt, M. (1987). Early modulation of visual input: A study of attentional strategies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A, 757–776.Google Scholar
  4. Breitmeyer, B. G. (1984).Visual masking: An integrative approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brunia, C. H. M., &van Boxtel, G. J. M. (2000). Motor preparation. In J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, & G. G. Berntson (Eds.),Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed., pp. 507–532). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cheal, M., Lyon, D. R., &Hubbard, D. C. (1991). Does attention have different effects on line orientation and line arrangement discrimination?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 825–857.Google Scholar
  7. Correa, A., Lupiáñez, J., &Tudela, P. (2005). Attentional preparation based on temporal expectancy modulates processing at the perceptual level.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 328–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coull, J. T., &Nobre, A. C. (1998). Where and when to pay attention: The neural systems for directing attention to spatial locations and to time intervals as revealed by both PET and fMRI.Journal of Neuroscience,18, 7426–7435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Grice, G. R. (1968). Stimulus intensity and response evocation.Psychological Review,75, 359–373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hackley, S. A., &Valle-Inclán, F. (1998). Automatic alerting does not speed late motoric processes in a reaction-time task.Nature,391, 786–788.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hackley, S. A., &Valle-Inclán, F. (1999). Accessory stimulus effects on response selection: Does arousal speed decision making?Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,11, 321–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hackley, S. A., &Valle-Inclán, F. (2003). Which stages of processing are speeded by a warning signal?Biological Psychology,64, 27–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasbroucq, T., Kaneko, H., Akamatsu, M., &Possamaï, C.-A. (1999). The time-course of preparatory spinal and cortico-spinal inhibition: An H-reflex and transcranial magnetic stimulation study in man.Experimental Brain Research,124, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henderson, J. M. (1991). Stimulus discrimination following covert attentional orienting to an exogenous cue.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hohle, R. H. (1965). Inferred components of reaction times as functions of foreperiod duration.Journal of Experimental Psychology,69, 382–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (1968). Method, findings, and theory in studies of visual masking.Psychological Bulletin,70, 404–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klemmer, E. T. (1956). Time uncertainty in simple reaction time.Journal of Experimental Psychology,51, 179–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loftus, G. R. (2002). Analysis, interpretation, and visual presentation of experimental data. In H. Pashler & J. Wixted (Eds.),Stevens’ Handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 4. Methodology in experimental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 339–390). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Loveless, N. E. (1973). The contingent negative variation related to preparatory set in a reaction time situation with variable foreperiod.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,35, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luce, R. D. (1986).Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Martens, S., &Johnson, A. (2005). Timing attention: Cuing target onset interval attenuates the attentional blink.Memory & Cognition,33, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mattes, S., &Ulrich, R. (1997). Response force is sensitive to the temporal uncertainty of response stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 1089–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, J., &Reynolds, A. (2003). The locus of redundant-targets and nontargets effects: Evidence from the psychological refractory period paradigm.Journal for Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 1126–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller-Gethmann, H., Ulrich, R., &Rinkenauer, G. (2003). Locus of the effect of temporal preparation: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential.Psychophysiology,40, 597–611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Niemi, P., &Näätänen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time.Psychological Bulletin,89, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pashler, H. [E.] (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory.Psychological Bulletin,116, 220–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pashler, H. E. (1998).The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pashler, H. [E.], &Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. [E.] Pashler (Ed.),Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  30. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., &Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., &Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sanders, A. F. (1980). Some effects of instructed muscle tension on choice reaction time and movement time. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.),Attention and performance VIII (pp. 59–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Sanders, A. F. (1998).Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Simon, J. R., &Slaviero, D. P. (1975). Differential effects of a foreperiod countdown procedure on simple and choice reaction time.Journal of Motor Behavior,7, 9–14.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, P. L., &Wolfgang, B. J. (2004). The attentional dynamics of masked detection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,30, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smulders, F. T. Y. (1993).The selectivity of age effects on information processing: Response times and electrophysiology. Unpublished dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  37. Sommer, W., Leuthold, H., &Schubert, T. (2001). Multiple bottlenecks in information processing? An electrophysiological examination.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sperling, G. (1963). A model for visual memory tasks.Human Factors,5, 19–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Spijkers, W. A. (1990). The relation between response-specificity, S-R compatibility, foreperiod duration and muscle-tension in a target aiming task.Acta Psychologica,75, 261–277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sternberg, S. (2001). Separate modifiability, mental modules, and the use of pure and composite measures to reveal them.Acta Psychologica,106, 147–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Teichner, W. H. (1954). Recent studies of simple reaction time.Psychological Bulletin,51, 128–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Turvey, M. T. (1973). On peripheral and central processes in vision: Inferences from an information-processing analysis of masking with patterned stimuli.Psychological Review,80, 1–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Woodrow, H. (1914). The effect upon reaction time of variation in the preparatory interval. In J. Angell, H. Warren, J. Watson, & S. Franz (Eds.),The psychological monographs (pp. 16–65). Princeton, NJ: Psychological Review Co.Google Scholar
  44. Yeshurun, Y., &Carrasco, M. (1999). Spatial attention improves performance in spatial resolution tasks.Vision Research,39, 293–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettina Rolke
    • 1
  • Peter Hofmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive and Biological PsychologyUniversity of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations