Abstract
Two experiments examined the hint procedure that Miller (1983) developed to determine whether response preparation begins before stimulus recognition finishes. Miller obtained an underadditire hint × discriminability interaction for reaction times to two-dimensional, symbolic stimuli assigned to the index and middle fingers of each hand. He interpreted this interaction as indicating that response preparation begins when the first stimulus dimension is identified. The present experiments failed to replicate the underadditive interaction for reaction times in three situations that met the logical requirements for producing the interaction. In Experiment 2, error rates did show an underadditive hint × discriminability interaction, but detailed analyses of the specific incorrect responses implicated stimulus-response translation processes rather than responsepreparation processes. Because the results obtained with the hint procedure arise from nonmotoric processes, we recommend caution regarding use of the procedure to determine whether partial stimulus information activates responses.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., &Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 529–553.
Eriksen, C. W., &Scholtz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 249–263.
Garner, W. R. (1985). Contingent information processing: Contingent and precued classification.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 237–248.
Meyer, D. E., Yantis, S., Osman, A. M., &Smith, J. E. K. (1985). Temporal properties of human information processing: Tests of discrete versus continuous models.Cognitive Psychology,17, 445–518.
Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 273–296.
Miller, J. (1983). Can response preparation begin before stimulus recognition finishes?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 161–182.
Miller, J. (1985). A hand advantage in preparation of simple keypress responses: Reply to Reeve and Proctor.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 221–233.
Nicoletti, R., Anzola, G. P., Luppino, G., Rizzolatti, G., &Umiltà, C. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 664–673.
Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1984, November).Can preparation procedures determine whether partial information activates responses? Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Antonio, TX.
Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 623–639.
Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (1986). Salient-feature coding operations in spatial precuing tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,12, 277–285.
Reeve, T. G., &Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception& Performance,10, 541–553
Reeve, T. G., &Proctor, R. W. (1985). Nonmotoric translation processes in the preparation of discrete finger responses: A rebuttal of Miller’s (1985) analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 234–240.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The movement precuing technique: Assumptions, applications, and extensions. In R. A. Magill (Ed.),Memory and control of action (pp. 231–274). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Rosenbaum, D. A., &Kornblum, S. (1982). A priming method for investigating the selection of motor responses.Acta Psychologica,51, 223–243.
Schmidt, R. A. (1982).Motor control and learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Schneider, W., &,Shffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.Psychological Review,84, 1–66.
Smith, E. E. (1968) Choice reaction t~me. An analysis of the major theoretical positrons.Psychological Bulletin,69, 77–110.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages. Extensions of Donder’s method. In W. G. Koster (Ed.),Attention and performance II (pp. 276–315). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Teichner, W. H., &Krebs, M. J. (1974) Laws of visual choice reaction time.Psychological Review,81, 75–98.
Zelaznik, H. (1976). Precuing response factors in choice reaction time. A word of caution.Journal of Motor Behavior,10, 77–79.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Proctor, R.W., Reeve, T.G. A caution regarding use of the hint procedure to determine whether partial stimulus information activates responses. Perception & Psychophysics 40, 110–118 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208190
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208190