↓ Skip to main content

Temporal Learning and Rhythmic Responding: No Reduction in the Proportion Easy Effect with Variable Response-Stimulus Intervals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Temporal Learning and Rhythmic Responding: No Reduction in the Proportion Easy Effect with Variable Response-Stimulus Intervals
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00634
Pubmed ID
Authors

James R. Schmidt

Abstract

The present report further investigates the proportion easy effect, a conflict-free version of the proportion congruent effect. In the proportion easy paradigm, it is observed that the difference in performance between easy (high contrast) and hard (low contrast) items is smaller in a task with mostly hard items relative to a task with mostly easy items. This effect has been interpreted as evidence for temporal learning: participants learn a faster pace (i.e., rhythm of responding) in the mostly easy context, which boosts the contrast effect, and a slower pace in the mostly hard context. In the present experiment, intervals between trials were either fixed or randomly varied from trial to trial. Interestingly, the proportion easy effect was still present with variable intervals. These data suggest that participants do not learn the regularity in timing from one response to the next (which was highly inconsistent with variable intervals). As one alternative, participants might be learning the intervals between stimulus onset and responses, which were not manipulated. They could then use this learned timing information to prepare for responding at the anticipated time, resulting in rhythmic responding. The results further imply that variable response-stimulus intervals are insufficient for controlling for rhythmic biases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 63%
Linguistics 1 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,333,181
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,212
of 29,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,808
of 298,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#396
of 426 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 426 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.