Programming time as a function of response duration: a replication of "dit-dah" without possible guessing artifacts.

Reaction time was longer prior to longer-lasting pressing responses for low probability, unanticipated movements. By contrast, reaction time was independent of response duration for high probability, anticipated movements. This replicates and extends previous findings for choice and simple reaction time in the "dit-dah" paradigm. The present results (unanticipated responses) cannot be given a selective anticipation interpretation because the comparison is between responses which are never anticipated. The previous paradigm was open to an alternative interpretation in which selective anticipation of dit rather than dah could have produced the differences in choice reaction time. Confirmation of the finding that variations in required response duration lead to differences in reaction time supports the view that the underlying parameter of "complexity" in the "memory drum theory" may be response duration.

[1]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Response programming in simple and choice reactions. , 1974, Journal of motor behavior.

[2]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Temporal compatibility in dual motor tasks II: Simultaneous articulation and hand movements , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[3]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Relation between programming time and duration of the response being programmed. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  E. Acosta,et al.  The time course of the verbal prediction effect , 1979 .

[5]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Doing two things at once: The role of temporal compatibility , 1979 .

[6]  S T Klapp,et al.  Response programming, as assessed by reaction time, does not establish commands for particular muscles. , 1977, Journal of motor behavior.

[7]  S T Klapp,et al.  Programmed control of aimed movements revisited the role of target visibility and symmetry. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  K. Newell,et al.  Movement time and velocity as determinants of movement timing accuracy. , 1979, Journal of motor behavior.

[9]  S T Klapp,et al.  Motor programming is not the only process which can influence RT: some thoughts on the Marteniuk and MacKenzie analysis. , 1981, Journal of motor behavior.

[10]  S T Klapp,et al.  Technical considerations regarding the short (dit)-long (dah) key press paradigm. , 1981, Journal of motor behavior.

[11]  H N Zelaznik,et al.  Target-size influences on reaction time with movement time controlled. , 1980, Journal of motor behavior.

[12]  K. M. Newell,et al.  Relative contribution of movement time, amplitude, and velocity to response initiation. , 1980 .

[13]  B. Kerr,et al.  Is reaction time different for long and short response durations in simple and choice conditions? , 1979, Journal of motor behavior.

[14]  F M Henry,et al.  Use of simple reaction time in motor programming studies: a reply to Klapp, Wyatt and Lingo. , 1980, Journal of motor behavior.

[15]  S. T. Klapp,et al.  Implicit speech in reading: Reconsidered , 1973 .

[16]  S T Klapp,et al.  The memory drum theory after twenty years: comments on Henry's note. , 1980, Journal of motor behavior.