Abstract
Two experiments investigated the effects of intensity and the number of response alternatives in hue identification. Three questions were addressed. First, what is the relationship between these effects? If intensity and number of alternatives affect different processes in series, these factors would have additive effects on reaction time (RT). Other models predict a multiplicative interaction. These models assume that when a stimulus is presented, evidence accrues over time for each response alternative, and that when the evidence for a particular alternative exceeds its criterion, the response is made. A natural auxiliary assumption is that intensity affects the rate of evidence accrual, while the number of alternatives affects the criterion. The second question addressed is, how does choice RT change as a function of intensity? Piéron used a power function to describe the effect of intensity on simple RT. This paper considers three candidates for intensity’s effect on choice RT: the power, logistic, and Michaelis functions. Each candidate function was tested in an additive model and a multiplicative model. The best account was given by the power function in an additive model. The last question is, does each process produce an output that can be classified as correct or incorrect? Schweickert (1985) proposed that factors that selectively influenced such processes would have additive effects on log percent correct. Instead, an interaction was found. Perhaps the assumption that the process affected by intensity produces a single output is wrong.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brebner, J. M. T., &Welford, A. T. (1980). Introduction: An historical background sketch. In A. T. Welford (Ed.),Reaction times (pp. 1–24). New York: Academic Press.
Busemeyer, J. R., &Jones, L. E. (1983). Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal variables are measured with error.Psychological Bulletin,93, 549–562.
Coles, M. G., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysical investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 529–553.
Easland, G. S., &Wasserman, G. S. (1979). Multiple intracellular contributions to light adaptation inlimulus ommatidia.Vision Research,19, 1–8.
Eriksen, C. W., &Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 249–263.
Everett, B. L., Hochhaus, L., &Brown, J. R. (1985). Letter-naming as a function of intensity, degradation, S-R compatibility, and practice.Perception & Psychophysics,37, 467–470.
Fisher, D. L., &Goldstein, W. M. (1983). Stochastic PERT networks as models of cognition: Derivation of mean, variance, and distribution of reaction time using order-of-processing (OP) diagrams.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,27, 121–151.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Halstead.
Grice, G. R. (1968). Stimulus intensity and response evocation.Psychological Review,75, 359–373.
Hemila, S. (1987). The stimulus-response functions of visual systems.Vision Research,27, 1253–1261.
Hinton, G. E., &Sejnowski, T. J. (1986). Learning and relearning in Boltzmann machines. In D. E. Rumelhart & J. L. McClelland (Eds.),Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the micro-structure of cognition (pp. 282–317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kohfeld, D. L., Santee, J. L., &Wallace, N. D. (1981). Loudness and reaction time: I.Perception & Psychophysics,29, 535–549.
Laming, D. R. J. (1968).Information theory of choice-reaction times. London: Academic Press.
Link, S. W. (1979). Improvements on a new model for choice reaction time.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 443–446.
Luce, R. D. (1986).Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
McGill, W. J. (1963). Stochastic latency mechanisms. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 309–360). New York: Wiley.
Munsell Color Company, Inc. (1967).Munsell book of color. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Naka, K. I., &Rushton, W. A. (1966). S-potentials from luminosity units in the retina of fish (Cyprinidae).Journal of Physiology,185, 587–599.
Niemi, P. (1979). Stimulus intensity effects on auditory and visual reaction processes.Acta Psychologica,43, 299–312.
Nissen, M. J. (1977). Stimulus intensity and information processing.Perception & Psychophysics,22, 338–352.
Pieron, H. (1914). Recherches sur les lois de variation des temps de latence sensorielle en fonction des intensités excitatrices.L’Année Psychologique,20, 17–96.
Piéron, H. (1920). Nouvelles recherches sur l’analyse du temps de latence sensorielle et sur la loi qui relie le temps à l’intensité d’excitation.L’Année Psychologique,22, 58–142.
Posner, M. I. (1978).Chronometrie explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raab, D., Fehrer, E., &Hershenson, M. (1961). Visual RT and the Broca-Sulzer phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology,61, 193–199.
Reed, A. V. (1979). Microcomputer display timing: Problems and solutions.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,11, 572–576.
Sanders, A. F., &Andriessen, J. E. B. (1978). A suppressing effect of response selection on immediate arousal in a choice reaction task.Acta Psychologica,42, 181–186.
Schweickert, R. (1978). A critical path generalization of the additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,18, 105–139.
Schweickert, R. (1985). Separable effects of factors on speed and accuracy: Memory scanning, lexical decision, and choice tasks.Psychological Bulletin,97, 530–546.
Shwartz, S. P., Pomerantz, J. R., &Egeth, H. (1977). State and process limitations in information processing: An additive factor analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 402–410.
Smith, M. C. (1967). Reaction time to a second stimulus as a function of intensity of the first stimulus.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,19, 125–132.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method.Acta Psychologica,30, 276–315.
Swensson, R. G. (1972). The elusive tradeoff: Speed versus accuracy in visual discrimination tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,12, 16–32.
Townsend, J. T., &Ashby, F. G. (1983).The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vickers, D., Burt, J., Smith, P., &Brown, M. (1985). Experimental paradigms emphasizing state or process limitations: I. Effects on speed-accuracy tradeoffs.Acta Psychologica,59, 129–161.
Vickers, D., Smith, P., Burt, J., &Brown, M. (1985). Experimental paradigms emphasizing state or process limitations: II. Effects on confidence.Acta Psychologica,59, 163–193.
Whitely, S. E., &Schneider, L. (1980).Process outcome models for verbal aptitude. (Tech. Rep. NIE-80-1). Lawrence: University of Kansas.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Grants MH38675 and MH414S2.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schweickert, R., Dahn, C. & McGuigan, K. Intensity and number of alternatives in hue identification: Piéron’s law and choice reaction time. Perception & Psychophysics 44, 383–389 (1988). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210422
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210422