The role of response mechanisms in determining reaction time performance: Piéron's law revisited

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 975-987

  Stafford, Tom ^a   Gurney, Kevin N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21944436423     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196729     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. BARGH, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In J. A. Bargh & J. S. Uleman (Eds.), Unintended thoughts (pp. 3-51). New York: Guilford.
2. BESNER, D. (2001). The myth of ballistic processing: Evidence from Stroop's paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 324-330.
3. BESNER, D., STOLZ, J. A., & BOUTILIER, C. (1997). The Stroop effect and the myth of automaticity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 221-225.
4. BONNET, C., ZAMORA, M. C., BURATTI, F., & GUIRAO, M. (1999). Group and individual gustatory reaction times and Piéron's law. Physiology & Behavior, 66, 549-558.
5. BROWN, T. L. (2003). The relationship between facilitation and interference in the Stroop task: Baselines, asymmetry, inverse correlations and the question of a common mechanism. Unpublished manuscript.
6. BROWN, T. L., GORE, C. L., & CARR, T. H. (2002). Visual attention and word recognition in Stroop color naming: Is word recognition "automatic?" Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 220-240.
7. BROWN, T. L., JONELEIT, K., ROBINSON, C. S., & BROWN, C. R. (2002). Automaticity in reading and the Stroop task: Testing the limits of involuntary word processing. American Journal of Psychology, 115, 515-543.
8. BROWN, T. L., ROOS-GILBERT, L., & CARR, T. H. (1995). Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 1395-1411.
9. CARPENTER, R. H. S., & REDDI, B. A. J. (2001). Reply to "Putting noise into neurophysiological models of simple decision making." Nature Neuroscience, 4, 337.
10. COHEN, J. D., DUNBAR, K., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332-361.
11. COHEN, J. D., SERVAN-SCHREIBER, D., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1992). A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 239-269.
12. DUNBAR, K., & MACLEOD, C. M. (1984). A horse race of a different color: troop interference patterns with transformed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 622-639.
13. DUNCAN, J. (1986). Consistent and varied training in the theory of automatic and controlled information processing. Cognition, 23, 279-284.
14. DURGIN, F. H. (2000). The reverse Stroop effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 121-125.
15. ELLIS, R., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1999). Connectionistpsychology: A text with readings. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
16. FUNAHASHI, K. (1989). On the approximate realization of continuous mappings by neural networks. Neural Networks, 2, 183-192.
17. GOLD, J. I., & SHADLEN, M. N. (2001). Neural computations that underlie decisions about sensory stimuli. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 10-16.
18. GURNEY, K., PRESCOTT, T. J., & REDGRAVE, P. (2001a). A computational model of action selection in the basal ganglia: I. A new functional anatomy. Biological Cybernetics, 84, 401-410.
19. GURNEY, K., PRESCOTT, T. J., & REDGRAVE, P. (2001b). A computational model of action selection in the basal ganglia: II. Analysis and simulation of behavior. Biological Cybernetics, 84, 411-423.
20. HORNIK, K., STINCHCOMBE, M., & WHITE, H. (1989). Multilayer feed-forward networks are universal approximators. Neural Networks, 2, 359-366.
21. HUMPHRIES, M. D., & GURNEY, K. (2002). The role of intra-thalamic and thalamocortical circuits in action selection. Network, 13, 131-156.
22. JACOBY, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 30, 513-541.
23. KAPLAN, W. (1952). Advanced calculus. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24. KOCH, C. (1999). The biophysics of computation: Information processing in single neurons. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. LAGARIAS, J. C., REEDS, J. A., WRIGHT, M. H., & WRIGHT, P. E. (1998). Convergence properties of the Nelder-Mead simplex method in low dimensions. SIAM Journal of Optimization, 9, 112-147.
26. LINDSAY, D. S., & JACOBY, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 219-234.
27. LOGAN, G. D. (1988). Towards an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
28. LUCE, R. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
29. MACLEOD, C. M. (1991). Haifa century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
30. MACLEOD, C. M. (1998). Training on integrated versus separated Stroop tasks: The progression of interference and facilitation. Memory & Cognition, 26, 201-211.
31. MACLEOD, C. M., & MACDONALD, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 383-391.
32. MCCLOSKEY, M. (1991). Networks and theories: The place of connectionism in cognitive science. Psychological Science, 2, 387-395.
33. PASHLER, H. E. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. PHAF, R. H., VAN DER HEIJDEN, A. H. C., & HUDSON, P. T. W. (1990). SLAM: A connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 273-341.
35. PIEŹRON, H. (1914). Recherches sur les lois de variation des temps de latence sensorielle en fonction des intensités excitatrices. L'Année Psychologique, 20, 17-96.
36. PIÉRON, H. (1920). Nouvelles recherches sur l'analyse du temps de la tence sensorielle et sur la loi qui relie de temp à l'intensité d'excitation. L'Année Psychologique, 22, 58-142.
37. PIÉRON, H. (1952), The sensations: Their functions, processes, and mechanisms. London: Müller.
38. PINS, D., & BONNET, C. (1996). On the relation between stimulus intensity and processing time: Piéron's law and choice reaction time. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 390-400.
39. POSNER, M. I., & SNYDER, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. PRESCOTT, T. J., REDGRAVE, P., & GURNEY, K. (1999). Layered control architectures in robots and vertebrates. Adaptive Behavior, 7, 99-127.
41. RAAIJMAKERS, J. G. W., & SHIFFRIN, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93-134.
42. RATCLIFF, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108.
43. RATCLIFF, R. (2001). Putting noise into neurophysiological models of simple decision making. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 336.
44. RATCLIFF, R., & ROUDER, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347-356.
45. RATCLIFF, R., VAN ZANDT, T., & MCKOON, G. (1999), Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychological Review, 106, 261-300.
46. REDDI, B. A., & CARPENTER, R. H. (2000). The influence of urgency on decision time. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 827-830.
47. REDGRAVE, P., PRESCOTT, T. J., & GURNEY, K. (1999). The basal ganglia: A vertebrate solution to the selection problem? Neuroscience, 89, 1009-1023.
48. RUMELHART, D. E., MCCLELLAND, J. L., & THE PDP RESEARCH GROUP (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. RYAN, C. (1983). Reassessing the automaticity-control distinction: Item recognition as a paradigm case. Psychological Review, 90, 171-178.
50. SCHALL, J. D. (2001). Neural basis of deciding, choosing and acting. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 33-42.
51. SHARKEY, A. J. C., & SHARKEY, N. E. (1995). Cognitive modeling: Psychology and connectionism. In M. Arbib (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory and neural networks (pp. 200-203). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52. STAFFORD, T. (2003). Integrating psychological and neuroscientific constraints in models of Stroop processing and action selection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield.
53. STAFFORD, T., & GURNEY, K. (2000, September). A computational model of response selection in the Stroop task. Poster presented at the BPS Cognitive Psychology Section 17th Annual Conference, Exeter.
54. STROOP, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
55. TYRRELL, T. (1992). Defining the action selection problem. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
56. TZELGOV, J., HENIK, A., & BERGER, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727-735.