Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Ga naar:
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
BSL Shop
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Psychological Research
Gepubliceerd in:

10-06-2015 | Original Article

The roles of stimulus and response uncertainty in forced-choice performance: an amendment to Hick/Hyman Law

Auteurs: Tim Wifall, Eliot Hazeltine, J. Toby Mordkoff

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2016

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Hick/Hyman Law describes one of the core phenomena in the study of human information processing: mean response time is a linear function of average uncertainty. In the original work of Hick, (1952) and Hyman, (1953), along with many follow-up studies, uncertainty regarding the stimulus and uncertainty regarding the response were confounded such that the relative importance of these two factors remains mostly unknown. The present work first replicates Hick/Hyman Law with a new set of stimuli and then goes on to separately estimate the roles of stimulus and response uncertainty. The results demonstrate that, for a popular type of task—visual stimuli mapped to vocal responses—response uncertainty accounts for a majority of the effect. The results justify a revised expression of Hick/Hyman Law and place strong constraints on theoretical accounts of the law, as well as models of response selection in general.
vorige artikel The relation between measures of cognitive and motor functioning in 5- to 6-year-old children
volgende artikel Impact of action primes on implicit processing of thematic and functional similarity relations: evidence from eye-tracking
Literatuur
Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1999). The fan effect: new results and new theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 186–197.CrossRef
Attneave, F. (1959). Applications of information theory to psychology: a summary of basic concepts, methods, and results. New York: Holt-Dryden.
Berlyne, D. E. (1957b). Uncertainty and conflict: a point of contract between information-theory and behavior-theory concepts. Psychological Review, 64, 329–339.CrossRefPubMed
Bricker, P. D. (1955). The identification of redundant stimulus patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 73–81.CrossRefPubMed
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: a simpler solution to Loftus and Massons’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
Dassonville, P., Lewis, S. M., Foster, H. E., & Ashe, J. (1999). Choice and stimulus-response compatibility affect duration of response selection. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 235–240.CrossRefPubMed
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRef
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.CrossRefPubMed
Fitts, P. M., & Switzer, G. (1962). Cognitive aspects of information processing: I. The familiarity of S-R sets and subsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 321–329.CrossRefPubMed
Hawkins, G., Brown, S. D., Steyvers, M., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2012). Context effects in multi-alternative decision making: empirical data and a Bayesian model. Cognitive Science, 36, 498–516.CrossRefPubMed
Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.CrossRef
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings. London: Sage Publications.
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 188–196.CrossRef
Jamieson, R. K., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2009). Applying an exemplar model to the serial reaction-time task: anticipating from experience. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1757–1783.CrossRefPubMed
Keele, S. W. (1970). Effects of input and output modes on decision time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85, 157–164.CrossRef
Kornblum, S. (1969). Sequential determinants of information processing in serial and discrete choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 76, 113–131.CrossRef
Kveraga, K., Boucher, L., & Hughes, H. (2002). Saccades operate in violation of Hick’s law. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 307–314.CrossRefPubMed
LaBerge, D., Legrand, R., & Hobbie, R. K. (1969). Functional identification of perceptual and response biases in choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 295–299.CrossRefPubMed
LaBerge, D., & Tweedy, J. R. (1964). Presentation probability and choice time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 477–481.CrossRefPubMed
Lacouture, Y., Li, S.-C., & Marley, A. A. J. (1998). The roles of stimulus and response set size in the identification of categorization of unidimensional stimuli. Australian Journal of Psychology, 50, 165–174.CrossRef
Leonard, J. A. (1959). Tactual choice reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 76–83.CrossRef
Longstreth, L. E. (1988). Hick’s law: its limit is 3 bits. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26, 8–10.CrossRef
Longstreth, L. E., El-Zahhar, N., & Alcorn, M. B. (1985). Exceptions to Hick’s law: explorations with a response duration measure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 417–434.CrossRef
Metzker, M., & Dreisbach, G. (2009). Bidirectional priming processes in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1770–1783.PubMed
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: a correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.
Mϋsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.
Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377.PubMed
Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33–48.CrossRef
Pollack, I. (1959). Message uncertainty and message reception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 31, 1500–1508.CrossRef
Rabbit, P. M. A. (1968). Repetition effects and signal classification strategies is serial choice-response tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 232–240.CrossRef
Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1959). Effects of independent variations in stimulus and response probability. Nature, 183, 1212.CrossRefPubMed
Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1966). Errors and error corrections in choice-response tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 264–272.CrossRefPubMed
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(379–423), 623–656.CrossRef
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions towards the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.CrossRefPubMed
Smith, E. E. (1968a). Choice reaction time: an analysis of the major theoretical positions. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 77–110.CrossRefPubMed
Smith, M. C. (1968b). Repetition effect and short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 435–439.CrossRefPubMed
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRef
Teichner, W. H., & Krebs, M. J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 81, 75–98.CrossRefPubMed
Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550–592.CrossRefPubMed
Usher, M., Olami, Z., & McClelland, J. L. (2002). Hick’s law in a stochastic race model with speed-accuracy tradeoff. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 704–715.CrossRef
Wang, H., & Proctor, R. W. (1996). Stimulus-response compatibility as a function of stimulus code and response modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1201–1217.
Welford, A. (1968). The fundamentals of skill. London: Methuen.
Wifall, T., McMurray, B., & Hazeltine, E. (2014). Perceptual similarity affects the learning curve (but not necessarily learning). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 312–331.CrossRef
Wright, C. E., Marino, V. M., Belovsky, S. A., & Chubb, C. (2007). Visually-guided, aimed movements can be unaffected by stimulus—response uncertainty. Experimental Brain Research, 179, 475–496.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
The roles of stimulus and response uncertainty in forced-choice performance: an amendment to Hick/Hyman Law
Auteurs
Tim Wifall
Eliot Hazeltine
J. Toby Mordkoff
Publicatiedatum
10-06-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0675-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2016

Dissociating conscious expectancies from automatic-link formation in an electrodermal conditioning paradigm

  • Original Article

Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect

  • Original Article

Professional mathematicians differ from controls in their spatial-numerical associations

  • Open Access
  • Original Article

The effect of SNARC compatibility on perceptual accuracy: evidence from object substitution masking

  • Original Article

Does the anticipation of compatible partner reactions facilitate action planning in joint tasks?

  • Original Article

Interference of lateralized distractors on arithmetic problem solving: a functional role for attention shifts in mental calculation

  • Original Article