Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 598–614 | Cite as

Millisecond precision psychological research in a world of commodity computers: New hardware, new problems?

Society for Computers in Psychology

Abstract

Since the publication of Plant, Hammond, and Turner (2004), which highlighted a pressing need for researchers to pay more attention to sources of error in computer-based experiments, the landscape has undoubtedly changed, but not necessarily for the better. Readily available hardware has improved in terms of raw speed; multicore processors abound; graphics cards now have hundreds of megabytes of RAM; main memory is measured in gigabytes; drive space is measured in terabytes; ever larger thin film transistor displays capable of single-digit response times, together with newer Digital Light Processing multimedia projectors, enable much greater graphic complexity; and new 64-bit operating systems, such as Microsoft Vista, are now commonplace. However, have millisecond-accurate presentation and response timing improved, and will they ever be available in commodity computers and peripherals? In the present article, we used a Black Box ToolKit to measure the variability in timing characteristics of hardware used commonly in psychological research.

References

  1. Accuracy versus precision, the target analogy (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2008, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/accuracy_and_precision#accuracy_versus_precision.3B_the_target_analogy.Google Scholar
  2. Beringer, J. (1992). Timing accuracy of mouse response registration on the IBM microcomputer family. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 24, 486–490.Google Scholar
  3. Krantz, J. H. (2000). Tell me, what did you see? The stimulus on computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 221–229.Google Scholar
  4. Plant, R. R., Hammond, N., & Turner, G. (2004). Self-validating presentation and response timing in cognitive paradigms: How and why? Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 291–303.Google Scholar
  5. Plant, R. R., Hammond, N., & Whitehouse, T. (2002). Toward an experimental timing standards lab: Benchmarking precision in the real world. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 218–226.Google Scholar
  6. Plant, R. R., Hammond, N., & Whitehouse, T. (2003). How choice of mouse may affect response timing in psychological studies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 276–284.Google Scholar
  7. Russinovich, M. (2007, August 27). Vista Multimedia playback and network throughput. Article posted to http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspxGoogle Scholar
  8. Schmidt, W. C. (2001). Presentation accuracy of Web animation methods. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33, 187–200.Google Scholar
  9. Ulrich, R., & Giray, M. (1989). Time resolution of clocks: Effects on reaction time measurement: Good news for bad clocks. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 42, 1–12.Google Scholar
  10. White, N. (2007, October 29). An overview of Windows sound and music ‘glitching’ issues. Article posted to http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/10/29/an-overview-of-windows-sound-and-music-glitching-issues.aspx.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkEngland

Personalised recommendations