Self-validating presentation and response timing in cognitive paradigms: How and why?

  • Richard R. PlantEmail author
  • Nick Hammond
  • Garry Turner


With the proliferation of commercial experiment generators and custom software within cognitive psychology and the behavioral sciences, many have assumed that issues regarding millisecond timing accuracy have been largely solved. However, through empirical investigation of a variety of paradigms, we have discovered numerous sources of timing error. These can range from poor scripting practices, to incorrect timing specifications, to hardware variability. Building upon earlier research, we have developed a commercial device and associated software that enables researchers to benchmark most computer-based paradigms in situ and without modification. This gives them the opportunity to correct timing errors where practicable, increase replicability, and reduce variability by altering onset times for stimuli, by replacing inaccurate hardware, or by post hoc statistical manipulation should the source of error be constant. We outline the features of the device and accompanying software suite, stress the importance of such independent validation, and highlight typical areas that can be subject to error.


Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Behavior Research Method Timing Accuracy Virtual Human Response Device 
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.


  1. Bates, T. C., &D’Oliveiro, L. (2003). PsyScript: A Macintosh application for scripting experiments.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35,565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beringer, J. (1992). Timing accuracy of mouse response registration on the IBM microcomputer family.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,24, 486–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chambers, C. D., &Brown, M. (2003). Timing accuracy under Microsoft Windows revealed through external chronometry.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35,96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Clercq, A., Crombez, G., Buysse, A., &Roeyers, H. (2003). A simple and sensitive method to measure timing accuracy.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35,109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finney, S. A. (2001). Real-time data collection in Linux: A case study.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33,167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forster, K. I., &Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,& Computers,35,116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamm, J. P. (2001). Object-oriented millisecond timers for the PC.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33,532–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. MacInnes, W. J., &Taylor, T. L. (2001). Millisecond timing on PCs and Macs.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33,174–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McKinney, C. J., MacCormac, E. R., &Welsh-Bohmer, K. A. (1999). Hardware and software for tachistoscopy: How to make accurate measurements on any PC utilizing the Microsoft Windows operating system.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31,129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Monk, A. F. (1981). Using a VDU for tachistoscopic CRT displays.Current Psychological Reviews,1, 357–361.Google Scholar
  11. Myors, B. (1999). Timing accuracy of PC programs running under DOS and Windows.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31,322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Psychology Software Tools, Inc. (n.d.).E-Prime 1.0. See, for details on E-Prime for Windows. Surface mail: 2050 Ardmore Boulevard, Suite 200, Pittsburgh, PA 15221–4610.Google Scholar
  15. Segalowitz, S. J., &Graves, R. E. (1990). Suitability of the IBM XT, AT, and PS/2 keyboard, mouse, and game port as response devices in reaction time paradigms.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,& Computers,22,283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shimizu, H. (2002). Measuring keyboard response delays by comparing keyboard and joystick inputs.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,& Computers,34,250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of YorkYorkEngland

Personalised recommendations