On the relation between stimulus intensity and processing time: Piéron’s law and choice reaction time

Piéron (1914, 1920, 1952) demonstrated that simple reaction time (SRT) decays as a hyperbolic function of luminance in detection tasks. However, whether such a relationship holds equally for choice reaction time (CRT) has been questioned (Luce, 1986; Nissen, 1977), at least when the task is not brightness discrimination. In two SRT and three CRT experiments, we investigated the function that relates reaction time (RT) to stimulus intensity for five levels of luminance covering the entire mesopic range. The psychophysical experiments consisted of simple detection, two-alternative forced choice (2 AFC) with spatial uncertainty, 2 AFC with semantic categorization, and 2 AFC with orientation discrimination. The results of the experiments showed that mean RT increases with task complexity. However, the exponents of the functions relating RT to stimulus intensity were found to be similar in the different experiments. This finding indicates that Piéron’s law holds for CRT as well as for SRT. It describes RT as a power function of stimulus intensity, with similar exponents, regardless of the complexity of the task.

[1]  J. M. Cattell,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF THE INTENSITY OF THE STIMULUS ON THE LENGTH OF THE REACTION TIME , 1886 .

[2]  H. Piéron,et al.  II. Recherches sur les lois de variation des temps de latence sensorielle en fonction des intensités excitatrices , 1913 .

[3]  H. Piéron,et al.  III. Nouvelles recherches sur l'analyse du temps de latence sensorielle et sur la loi qui relie ce temps à l'intensité d'excitation , 1920 .

[4]  D. Whitteridge,et al.  Learning and Relearning , 1959, Science's STKE.

[5]  W. J. McGill.  Loudness and reaction time: A guided tour of the Listener's private world , 1961 .

[6]  Donald I. Tepas,et al.  Properties of evoked visual potentials , 1962 .

[7]  G. Grice,et al.  STIMULUS INTENSITY EFFECTS DEPEND UPON THE TYPE OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN. , 1964, Psychological review.

[8]  C. H. Graham,et al.  Vision and visual perception , 1965 .

[9]  K. Naka,et al.  S‐potentials from luminosity units in the retina of fish (Cyprinidae) , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

[10]  H G Vaughan,et al.  The functional relation of visual evoked response and reaction time to stimulus intensity. , 1966, Vision research.

[11]  Donald Laming,et al.  Information theory of choice-reaction times , 1968 .

[12]  Grice Gr,et al.  Stimulus intensity and response evocation. , 1968 .

[13]  D. F. Fisher,et al.  Effect of stimulus degradation and similarity on the trade-off between speed and accuracy in absolute judgments. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Stimulus discriminability and S-R compatibility: Evidence for independent effects in choice reaction time , 1970 .

[15]  R. M. Boynton,et al.  Visual Adaptation in Monkey Cones: Recordings of Late Receptor Potentials , 1970, Science.

[16]  D M Green,et al.  A neural timing theory for response times and the psychophysics of intensity. , 1972, Psychological review.

[17]  J. Lappin,et al.  The latency operating characteristic. II. Effects of visual stimulus intensity on choice reaction time. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  R. Mansfield,et al.  Latency functions in human vision. , 1973, Vision research.

[19]  W. Levick.  Variation in the response latency of cat retinal ganglion cells. , 1973, Vision research.

[20]  J. Stone,et al.  Properties of cat retinal ganglion cells: a comparison of W-cells with X- and Y-cells. , 1974, Journal of neurophysiology.

[21]  W. R. Garner.  The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[22]  J R Bartlett,et al.  Response of units in striate cortex of squirrel monkeys to visual and electrical stimuli. , 1974, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  R. Marrocco.  Possible neural basis of brighness magnitude estimations , 1975, Brain Research.

[24]  M. Nissen,et al.  Stimulus intensity and information processing , 1977 .

[25]  Takehiro Ueno,et al.  Reaction time as a measure of temporal summation at suprathreshold levels , 1977, Vision Research.

[26]  M. Posner.  Chronometric explorations of mind : the third Paul M. Fitts lectures, delivered at the University of Michigan, September 1976 , 1978 .

[27]  James L. McClelland.  On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. , 1979 .

[28]  Gerald S. Wasserman,et al.  Multiple intracellular contributions to light adaptation in Limulus ommatidia , 1979, Vision Research.

[29]  L. Hochhaus,et al.  Letter-naming as a function of intensity, degradation, S-R compatibility, and practice , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  Ronald P. Cody,et al.  Applied Statistics and the SAS Programming Language , 1986 .

[31]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning and relearning in Boltzmann machines , 1986 .

[32]  Simo Hemilä,et al.  The stimulus-response functions of visual systems , 1987, Vision Research.

[33]  R. Schweickert,et al.  Intensity and number of alternatives in hue identification: Piéron’s law and choice reaction time , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Claude Bonnet,et al.  Only stimulus energy affects the detectability of visual forms and objects , 1990 .

[35]  C Bonnet,et al.  Psychophysical scaling within an information processing approach? , 1992, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[36]  C. Bonnet,et al.  Reaction time and visual area : searching for the determinants , 1992 .

[37]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Global shape cannot be attended without object identification. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  J. Miller.  A queue-series model for reaction time, with discrete-stage and continuous-flow models as special cases. , 1993, Psychological review.