Search

In the study of nonspecific preparation, the response time (RT) to an imperative stimulus is analyzed as a function of the foreperiod (FP), the interval between a warning stimulus and the imperative stimulus. When FP is varied within blocks of trials, a downward sloping FP-RT function is usually observed. The slope of this function depends on the distribution of FPs (the more negative the skewness, the steeper the slope) and on intertrial sequences of FP (the longer the FP on the preceding trial, the steeper the slope). Because these determinants are confounded, we examined whether FP-RT functions, observed under three different FP distributions (i.e., uniform, exponential, and peaked) can be predicted, one from the other, by reweighting sequential effects. It turned out that reweighting explained very little variance of the difference between the FP-RT functions, suggesting a dominant role of temporal orienting strategies. more...

I examined the relation between two inhibitory processes operating on spatial and temporal representations. In two experiments, participants had to detect a peripheral target that was presented after a variable interval following the onset of an uninformative peripheral cue. For the shortest cue-target interval, target detection was faster at the cued than at the uncued location, but this effect was reversed for the longer cue-target intervals. This finding has been taken to reflect a buildup of space-related inhibition over time, known as inhibition of return. Also, target detection was slower when the cue-target interval of the preceding trial was longer than that of the current trial than when this was not so. This sequential effect has been taken to reflect an intertrial carryover of time-related inhibition. Crucially, the spatial and temporal effects were additive in both experiments, suggesting a modular organization of the underlying inhibitory processes. more...