Confidence ill stimulus predictions and choice reaction time

In two choice reaction time (RT) experiments, a stimulus prediction and a confidence judgment in the prediction preceded each occurrence of one of two stimulus alternatives. Ss identified each stimulus presentation by pressing a left-hand or right-hand telegraph key. In Experiment I the source of the stimulus predictions and confidence estimates was varied between groups of 20 Ss. For each condition, RT to correctly predicted stimuli was an inverse function of prediction confidence. Following incorrectly predicted stimuli, RT was not reliably influenced by confidence when S gave both predictions and confidence judgments; but RT to incorrectly predicted stimuli was an increasing function of confidence when E verbalized the predictions and confidence estimates or when S predicted and E indicated confidence. In Experiment II Ss made predictions and the validity of Es confidence estimate was manipulated between Ss. When Es confidence was perfectly related to the probability of a correct prediction, choice RT to nonpredicted stimuli was inversely related to confidence. However, choice RT to nonpredicted stimuli was not affected by prediction confidence when Es judgments were random.     

Verbal predictions of unexpected stimuli and choice reaction time

In two choice reaction time (RT) experiments, subjects verbally predicted the stimulus alternative that was either most or least likely to be presented on each trial. An expectancy interpretation of prediction effects requires that stimuli matching least likely predictions yield the longest RTs. In Experiment 1, with four stimulus alternatives, RTs to stimuli matching the verbalized stimulus, both most likely and least likely predictions, were shorter than RTs to stimuli that matched neither the most nor the least likely predictions. However, matching most likely predictions produced faster responses with two alternatives. In Experiment 2, multiple predictions of both most and least likely stimuli were compared with joint predictions of first and second most likely alternatives. RTs to stimuli matching least likely predictions were longer than RTs to most likely matches, implicating prediction type as a partial determinant of RT. Matching least likely stimuli were responded to more quickly than unpredicted alternatives, demonstrating the importance of generating a prediction per se over the implied level of expectancy. Results from both experiments were contrasted with nonparametric predictions from an ordered memory scanning model.     

Stimulus and response prediction in choice reaction time: Free vs. forced reactions

Verbal predictions were combined in a 1:many mapping in order to analyze the contribution of response preparation to both stimulus and response prediction effects in choice reaction time (RT). Using a three-stimulus, two-response task in which two of the stimuli were mapped 1:1 to separate responses (forced-choice) and the third stimulus was mapped to both responses (free-choice), response frequencies and latencies were compared in two experiments. The results indicated that (1) free-choice response selections were not influenced by forced-choice stimulus predictions; (2) free-choice RTs were reduced only when the free-choice stimulus was correctly predicted; (3) free-choice responses were generally consistent with the response predicted, but RT did not depend on response prediction; (4) on forced-choice trials, the RT difference between correct and incorrect predictions was similar for stimulus and response predictions; and (5) under no-prediction conditions, no difference was found between free and forced RTs. A stimulus anticipation component was the only apparent contribution to the stimulus prediction effect, while the response prediction data suggest some prior response selection with no associated decrease in latency     

The time course of the verbal prediction effect

Choice reaction times following correct verbal predictions of the presented stimulus are faster than after incorrect predictions. Two experiments examined the influence of the time interval (PSI) between the prediction and the stimulus on the magnitude of the prediction effect. Experiment 1 used equiprobable stimuli and showed a smaller prediction effect at a 2-sec PSI than at a 0- or .5-sec PSI. Experiment 2 used unequal-probability stimuli and showed that the prediction effect was independent of PSI when the more frequent stimulus was predicted. When the less frequent stimulus was predicted, however, the magnitude of the prediction effect was smaller at .75- and 2-sec PSIs than at a 0-sec PSI. These results were discussed in terms of a prediction substitution hypothesis.     

Prediction outcome probabilities as determinants of choice reaction time

In a two-stimulus two-response choice reaction time (RT) task in which Ss made stimulus predictions, the probability of a correct prediction was manipulated between Ss. The magnitude of the difference in RT to correctly and incorrectly predicted stimuli (i.e., the prediction outcome effect) was an increasing function of the probability of a correct prediction This finding was primarily due to a reliable decrease in RT to correctly predicted stimuli as the probability of a correct prediction increased, since RT to incorrectly predicted stimuli was not affected by prediction outcome probability. These results were interpreted as partially supporting a continuous expectancy notion which involves facilitory and inhibitory mechanisms winch are differentially influenced by the probability of a correct prediction.     

Effects of stimulus-response correspondence and verbal expectancy on choice reaction time.

The effects of S-R correspondence, verbal prediction, and stimulus discriminability were examined in a discrete, two-choice reaction-time task. Correctness of prediction and S-R correspondence were significant main effects. In addition, responses were significantly faster for correct predictions on noncorresponding trials than for incorrect predictions on corresponding trials. This latter finding indicates that an expectancy mechanism can partially offset the negative effect of spatial S-R noncorrespondence on absolute magnitude of choice reaction time.     

Response time distributions in multidimensional perceptual categorization

Three speeded categorization experiments were conducted using separable dimension stimuli. The form of the category boundary was manipulated across experiments, and the distance from category exemplars to the category boundary was manipulated within each experiment. Observers completed several sessions in each experiment, yielding 300–400 repetitions of each stimulus. The large sample sizes permitted accurate estimates of the response time (RT) distributions and RT hazard functions. Analyses of these data indicated: (1) RT was faster for stimuli farther from the category boundary, and this stochastic dominance held at the level of the RT distributions; (2) RT was invariant for all stimuli the same distance from the category boundary; (3) when task difficulty was high, errors were slower than correct responses, whereas this difference disappeared when difficulty was low; (4) small, consistent response biases appeared to have a large effect on the relation between correct and error RT; (5) the shape of the RT hazard function was qualitatively affected by distance to the category boundary. These data establish a rich set of empirical constraints for testing developing models of categorization RT.     

Effects of a coactor's prediction on latencies to predict and indentify stimuli

On each of 300 trials E's confederate (C) verbalized which of two stimuli would occur; then S made a prediction. Following each presentation, S and C pulled a trigger to identify the stimulus. Two latencies were measured: the interval between C's and S's prediction (prediction time), and the interval between stimulus presentation and S's identification response (choice RT). Prediction times were significantly shorter when S's prediction agreed rather than disagreed with C's prediction, when S's preceding prediction was correct rather than incorrect, and when S was female rather than male. Choice RT was influenced by distributions of C's stimulus predictions and C's prediction outcomes in directions supporting an expectancy model.     

Prediction outcome and choice reaction time: Inhibition versus facilitation effects

In two-choice RT tasks Ss verbally predicted all stimulus presentations, two-thirds of the presentations, or none of the presentations. Effects of stimulus probability were similar for each type of prediction trial: Correct Prediction Outcome (PO), Incorrect PO, and No-Prediction (NP). When comparisons between Prediction and NP trials were between Ss, reactions on NP trials were significantly faster than reactions POs, but were not slower than reactions to Correct POs. However, when Prediction and NP trials occurred within Ss, reactions on NP trials were not faster than reactions to Incorrect POs, but were significantly slower than reactions to Correct POs. Speculations about Ss' implicit stimulus predictions are offered to interpret differential implications of inhibition and facilitation.     

Sequential effects in a two-choice serial reaction task

Twenty-four subjects performed a symbolic two-choice serial reaction task under four conditions. These were with a delay from previous response to onset of next stimulus of 100 millisec, 600 millisec., 2 sec., and a fourth condition of 2 sec. delay with verbal prediction of the next stimulus. A positive recency or repetition effect occurred at 100 millisec. delay where RTs to repeated stimuli were faster than RTs to alternate stimuli. At 600 millisec. this effect was still present, though much reduced. The 2 sec. delay gave a negative recency effect where RTs were slower to repeated than to alternate stimuli. This effect increased significantly with simultaneous prediction of the next stimulus. The verbal predictions themselves displayed negative recency. Run analysis of the four conditions revealed strking differences. These results emphasize the need for analysing the microstructure of choice RT situations and reveal deficiencies in present models.     

Tied to expectations: Predicting features speeds processing even under adverse circumstances

When participants predict the upcoming stimulus in a randomized choice reaction task, a match between prediction and stimulus increases processing speed at a level similar to that observed in cueing studies with highly valid cues. This might be taken to suggest that people cannot help but fully use their self-generated, verbalized predictions for preparing task processing. Thus, we tested how flexibly participants can control formation and implementation of predictions. In Experiment 1, we varied validity and response-relevance of predictions. We observed that prediction effects on RT can be boosted by increasing validity, but prevail under adverse circumstances. This was not the case in a control group who read rather than predicted the feature words, suggesting that the effect was specific to predictions as such. Experiment 2 provided further evidence for limited control of participants over implementing and forming predictions. Participants were provided with practice on stimuli occurring with varying frequency, but neither learned to strategically choose predictions to maximize the number of match trials, nor did they reduce the amount of prediction-based preparation when predicting an infrequent stimulus. As sequential aftereffects of prediction match did not vary with validity, they were identified as an independent effect of verbalizing a response-relevant stimulus feature. The results are consistent with the view that the predicted stimulus feature is represented in the focus of attention in working memory and that the amount of implementation can be subject to weighting.     

Executive control in the Simon effect: an electromyographic and distributional analysis

Manual responses to lateralized stimuli are faster for spatially congruent stimulus-response associations than for incongruent associations, even if the stimulus location is irrelevant. This effect, however, decreases as reaction time increases. Recent data suggest that such a decrease reflects online, within-trial executive control. The present study was aimed at testing this hypothesis by analyzing the electromyographic activity of muscles involved in response execution. We focused on the particular trials in which an activation of the muscle involved to the incorrect response preceded the execution of the correct response. A sequential effect analysis, along with an analysis of the reaction time distributions, revealed that after such dual-activation trials, executive control was reinforced. In addition, a distribution analysis of the reaction times associated with such trials compared to the trials without incorrect activation, revealed online, within-trial changes in executive control. Arguments against a late motor locus of the effect of the irrelevant stimulus location are also provided. These results are discussed in terms of current models of cognitive control.     

Underpredicted pain disrupts more than correctly predicted pain, but does not hurt more

One of the explanations for the negative effects of underpredicted aversive experiences is that they have more impact than correctly predicted aversive experiences. In a laboratory experiment 40 normal female subjects executed an auditory discrimination task. Subjects were randomly assigned to a correct information condition and an underprediction information condition. After ten trials (baseline) subjects were informed that they would receive some painful (correct prediction) or non-painful tingling (underprediction) stimuli during the discrimination task. Starting just before five of the following 20 discrimination trials, 2 s of painful electrical stimulation was given. Subjects rated sensations and painfulness of the electrical stimulation, subjective anxiety, and degree of distraction from the task, after each pain stimulus. Reaction times of the discrimination task and heart rate were measured. Underprediction information resulted in lower pain ratings, but stronger heart rate responses and higher disruption on the discrimination task, compared to correct information. This suggests that while underpredictions of pain do not hurt more, disruption on primary tasks and physiological impact are higher. Underpredicted pain has more impact than correctly predicted pain, not because it hurts more, but because it conveys inherent danger information.     

Selective response activation can begin before stimulus recognition is complete: a psychophysiological and error analysis of continuous flow

In discussions of process models of human information processing, the continuous flow conception (Eriksen and Schultz 1979) plays a prominent role. A central prediction of this conception is that any information in a display associated with a response activates that response as soon as it becomes available in the perceptual system. If it concerns the correct response channel, then response facilitation occurs. If it concerns the incorrect response channel, then response competition occurs. To assess these mechanisms more directly, we used psychophysiological measures as well as reaction time (RT). We used the latency of the P3 component of the event related brain potential (ERP) as an index of stimulus evaluation duration, the onset of lateralized motor activity derived from the ERP as an index of selective central motor activation, and the onset of electromyographic activity as an index of the start of peripheral motor activation. Subjects were required to respond to target letters that were either flanked by letters that signalled the opposite response (incompatible arrays), by the target itself (compatible arrays), by letters not associated with a response (neutral arrays), or by no other letters (targets alone). Our results replicated the basic findings obtained in this paradigm. RTs to targets alone did not differ from RTs to compatible arrays. The latter were faster than RTs to neutral arrays, which were faster than RTs to incompatible arrays. P3 latencies were longer on incompatible than on neutral trials, and longer on compatible than on target alone trials. Incorrect central response activation on incompatible trials and correct central response activation on compatible trials, both began earlier than on target alone trials. Peripheral responding on both trial types, however, began later than on target alone trials. More incompatible but less compatible trials than neutral ones exhibited incorrect peripheral response activation. Peripheral response execution was faster and more accurate on compatible than on target alone trials, while it was slower and less accurate on incompatible than on neutral trials. These results indicate, that the flankers activated their associated response channel while display evaluation was still going on, and that response facilitation and competition occurred. After applying criteria proposed by Miller (1988), it was concluded that the set of stimulus recognition processes and the set of response activation processes cannot be regarded as independent stages of processing.     

Hemispheric differences in semantic processing: Category matching is not the same as category membership

Two closely related semantic processing tasks were studied under identical procedural conditions in order to examine lateral visual field effects on reaction times. In Experiment 1, reaction times did not differ as a function of visual field when subjects decided whether a lateral word was a member of a foveally presented category word (category membership task). On the other hand, reaction times were faster for right than for left visual field stimulus presentations when subjects decided whether two words, one lateral and one foveal, belonged to the same category (category matching task), although this advantage did not occur immediately. In Experiment 2, the laterality effect in the category matching task was studied as a function of word familiarity. Two groups of subjects performed the matching task for two blocks of trials, one group receiving the same word list in each block and the other receiving different lists. No visual field differences in reaction times were observed for either group during the first block of trials, but a distinct right field advantage appeared for both during the second block. The data from these experiments suggest that category matching strategies rely upon structures or processes localized in the left hemisphere, although their influence is not immediate. Category membership strategies, on the other hand, do not depend upon such localized structures.     

Stimulus probability and prediction outcome as determinants of choice reaction time: Some procedural considerations

Effects of stimulus probability and prediction outcome on two-choice reaction speed (CRS) were determined when a frequency imbalance was reversed half-way through 300 samples of a 70/30 stimulus distribution and when the same 70/30 distribution was sampled for 1200 trials. Prior to each presentation Ss made a prediction; following each presentation Ss identified the stimulus by pressing a right-hand or left-hand trigger. CRS was faster to correctly predicted stimuli, and faster to the more probable stimulus. Ss who were informed of the frequency imbalance reacted significantly faster than Ss who were not. Both practice and boredom effects were demonstrated by using the extended number of trials. CRS was faster during the second session of 300 trials than during the first; after two sessions, CRS was slower during the second half of two additional sessions.     

The relative accessibility of phonemes and syllables

Previous research comparing detection times for syllables and for phonemes has consistently found that syllables are responded to faster than phonemes. This finding poses theoretical problems for strictly hierarchical models of speech recognition, in which smaller units should be able to be identified faster than larger units. However, inspection of the characteristics of previous experiments’ stimuli reveals that subjects have been able to respond to syllables on the basis of only a partial analysis of the stimulus. In the present experiment, five groups of subjects listened to identical stimulus material. Phoneme and syllable monitoring under standard conditions was compared with monitoring under conditions in which near matches of target and stimulus occurred on no-response trials. In the latter case, when subjects were forced to analyze each stimulus fully, phonemes were detected faster than syllables.     

Decisional processing in paranoid and non-paranoid schizophrenics

40 schizophrenic subjects, divided into paranoid/non-paranoid categories and 14 normal controls were presented a task which involved making "same-different" judgments during random presentations of a series of visual comparison stimuli with a standard which represented the midpoint of the stimulus continuum. Using Sternberg's Choice RT paradigm for studying the locus of cognitive deficit, difficulty at the response-selection stage was manipulated while holding other stages constant. It was predicted that paranoids would have shorter RTs at easy decision points and longer RTs at difficult decision points relative to non-paranoids. The directions of the differences were as predicted but did not attain statistical significance. Both schizophrenic groups, compared to normals, made significantly fewer "same" responses on those trials where the comparison and standard were most similar.     

Category-structure effects in picture comparisons

Subjects indicated for a series of trials whether or not two pictures of common objects were from the same category. Reaction time (RT) was recorded. The pool of stimuli used in the series of trials consisted of two pictures representing each of several categories. Half were S categories, members of which were similar; the other half were D categories, which had dissimilar members (this variable is termed category structure). In Experiments 1 and 3, the similarity manipulation defining category structure was based on the concept of basic level categories (Rosch, Mervis, Gray, Johnson, & Boyes-Braem, 1976). In Experiment 2, category labels were homonyms, and the two members of S or D categories represented one or two senses of the labels, respectively. The principal finding was an effect of category structure (faster RT on trials using stimuli from S categories rather than D categories). These results are interpreted in terms of a model that postulates the use of semantic codes in the task, even on trials where the two stimuli are physically identical.     

Intertrial sources of stimulus control and delayed matching-to-sample performance in humans

Two experiments compared delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) accuracy under 2 procedures in adults with mental retardation. In the trial-unique procedure, every trial in a session contained different stimuli. Thus, comparison stimuli that were correct on one trial were never incorrect on other trials in that session (or vice versa). In the 2-sample DMTS procedure, the same 2 comparison stimuli were presented on each trial, and their function changed quasi-randomly across trials conditional upon the sample stimulus. Across 2 experiments, 7 of 8 subjects showed the highest overall accuracy under the trial-unique procedure, and no subject showed consistently higher accuracy under the 2-sample procedure. Negative, exponential decay functions fit to logit p values showed that this difference was due largely to the steeper delay-mediated decline in sample control for the 2-sample procedure. Stimulus-control analyses indicated that, under the 2-sample procedure, the selection of the comparison stimulus on Trial N was often controlled by the comparison stimulus selection on Trial N-1 rather than the Trial-N sample stimulus. This source of competing stimulus control is not present in trial-unique procedures. Experiment 2 manipulated intertrial interval duration. There was a small but consistent increase in accuracy as a function of intertrial interval duration under the 2-sample procedure, but not under the trial-unique procedure.