Journal of Experimental Psychology

Monograph
Vol. 79, No. 3, Part 2 March 1969

FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE REACTION TIME:

ANTICIPATION OR EXPECTANCY? 1

JOAN GAY SNODGRASS 2

New York University

An experimental method for determining the location of S's "true" simple RT

distribution consists of rewarding him for responding consistently by means of
narrow payoff bands, systematically varying the position of these payoff
bands along the time axis, and identifying as the true RT distribution that one
having minimum variability. The location of this true RT distribution was not
significantly affected by increasing the foreperiod range from 0 through 300
msec. These and other results were taken as evidence for an anticipation
model as opposed to an expectancy model for foreperiod effects in simple
RT. The anticipation model proposes an underlying RT distribution of low
variability which is unaffected by foreperiod variability and payoffs, but which
combines with more variable distributions of time estimations to produce the
observed RT distributions. The empirical RT distributions were highly
peaked with high tails and, consistent with previous results, were better de-
scribed by the double monomial (DM) distribution than by either the normal
or exponential. However, the exponential was superior to the DM for
distributions composed primarily of true reactions. Strong sequential effects
over as many as 20 trials were observed, and were greater for no-feedback
than feedback conditions.

Simple reaction time (RT) has been found
to increase with increased uncertainty in
the time of stimulus occurrence, regardless
of whether such uncertainty is manipulated
by changes in foreperiod (FP) duration, FP
variability (Karlin, 1959; Klemmer, 1956;
Woodrow, 1914), or the proportion of catch
trials (Drazin, 1961). Klemmer (1957),
analyzing these effects within the context of
information theory, found that mean RT was
1
This paper was based on a dissertation sub-
mitted to the Faculty of Philosophy, University of
Pennsylvania, in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for the PhD degree. The author wishes to
express her gratitude to R. Duncan Luce, for advice
in the conception and analysis of the experiment,
and to R. Duncan Luce, Francis W. Irwin, Allan J.
Nash, and Allen M. Schneider for criticisms of a
preliminary draft of the paper.
The experimental and theoretical support for this
work was provided by National Science Foundation
Grant GB 1462 to the University of Pennsylvania.
1
1969 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
a linear function of stimulus uncertainty,
when uncertainty is defined as the sum of the
variance of 5"s time estimates of durations
equal to the mean FP duration and the vari-
ance of the FP durations imposed experi-
mentally by E. A related finding is that
within a series of variable FPs, mean RT
varies inversely with duration of the immedi-
ate FP presented on the trial (Drazin, 1961;
Karlin, 1959; Nickerson, 1965; Woodrow,
The computer time was provided by National Insti-
tutes of Health Grant FR-1S to the Johnson Re-
search Foundation, School of Medicine, University
of Pennsylvania, and by a grant from the Computer
Center of the University of Pennsylvania. A
short report of this work was read at the meetings
of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston,
April 1967.
2
Requests for reprints should be sent to Joan Gay
Snodgrass, Department of Psychology, New York
University, University Heights, New York, New
York 10453.
 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS
1914). This phenomenon has been termed
"the immediate FP effect."
Although there is agreement on the exist-
ence of these empirical phenomena, there is
disagreement on their interpretation. The
oldest interpretation, here referred to as the
expectancy model, proposes that RT varies
inversely with level of readiness or attention,
and that readiness in turn decreases as the
length or the variability of the set of FPs
used within a session increases, or as the
length of the FP on a particular trial de-
creases (Karlin, 1959; Woodrow, 1914).
An alternative interpretation, here called
the anticipation model, was suggested by
Nickerson (1965) to account for the immedi-
ate FP effect he observed in his data. He
noted that as the duration of the immediate
FP increased, so also did the frequency of
false reactions (responses prior to the reac-
tion signal) and the frequency of spuriously
fast RTs (<130 msec.) which he assumed to
have been initiated prior to the reaction stim-
ulus. He attributed at least part of the
immediate FP effect to an increased tendency
of S to anticipate the signal as time from
the warning signal, and hence FP duration,
increased.
The anticipation model proposed here is an
elaboration of Nickerson's initial observa-
tions. Under the variable FP conditions of
Nickerson's experiment, 6" is assumed to pro-
duce a mixture of anticipations (or time es-
timates from the warning signal) and true
RTs. Because the proportion of anticipa-
tory time estimates he makes increases as
immediate FP duration increases, and be-
cause time estimates result in shorter RTs
than true reactions, 6"'s mean RT decreases
with increased FP duration within a vari-
able FP condition. The proposed anticipa-
tion model thus accounts for the entire im-
mediate FP effect by assuming differential
rates of anticipatory time estimates for the
different FP durations.
The anticipation model can also account
for other FP effects such as the increase in
RT with increased mean FP duration or in-
creased FP variability. It simply assumes
that S makes more anticipatory time esti-
mates under fixed or short FP durations than
under variable or long FP durations because
he is less likely to make false reactions un-
der the former than under the latter condi-
tions. According to the anticipation model,
then, mean RT increases with increased FP
duration or variability because spuriously
fast RTs due to time estimation drop out,
not, as the expectancy model proposes, be-
cause 5"s level of readiness decreases.
To test the anticipation model, a method
is needed of observing the true RT distribu-
tion under different degrees of FP variabil-
ity. To do this, one must first make some
assumptions about differences between true
reactions and time estimates, and then at-
tempt to take advantage of these differences
by means of payoffs.
True reactions are assumed to differ from
anticipatory time estimates in two ways:
first, they are longer; second, they are less
variable. The reason why they are longer
is obvious. The reason why they are less
variable is based on the following reason-
ing: If, as is commonly done, true RT is
assumed to be the arithmetic sum of stimulus
input time, decision time, and motor response
time, then time estimates must also include
each of these three steps plus an additional
componentdelay. The interposed delay is
assumed to add some variability of its own,
which increases monotonically with the in-
terval. In fact, there is good empirical evi-
dence that the variability of time estimates
increases with the duration of the interval
being estimated (Snodgrass, Luce, & Galan-
ter, 1967; Woodrow, 1930, 1933).
In order to encourage to make true reac-
tions rather than anticipatory time esti-
mates, he should be rewarded for RTs of
intermediate length and low variability. The
band payoff was developed to do just that.
Under the band payoff, 5" is given informa-
tion feedback and monetary payoffs for re-
sponding within a narrow latency band, and
is penalized for responding outside the band,
regardless of whether he is too fast or too
slow. Because the location of the true RT
distribution is not known a priori, the band
payoff is moved along the time axis from a
latency band clearly too fast for true RT
to one clearly too slow. The true RT dis-
tribution is identified as that distribution of
RTs showing least variability, and the band
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT
location producing this distribution of mini-
mum variability is called the optimum band.
Snodgrass et al. (1967) varied the posi-
tion of a 20-msec. wide payoff band from
85-105 msec, to 185-205 msec, after the on-
set of an auditory reaction signal which in
turn was delivered after a fixed 2-sec. FP.
They found that the location of the optimum
band varied from 105-125 msec, to 145-165
msec, over four 5"s. As the band position
departed from .9's optimum in either direc-
tion, RT variability generally increased
monotonically for each 6". These results
were interpreted as indicating that under the
optimum band, 5" reacted to the reaction sig-
nal and thereby produced the least variable
RT distribution, whereas under faster bands
he made time estimates of the FP duration
and under slower bands, time estimates from
the reaction signal of a time interval longer
than the true reaction time. Under condi-
tions in which 5" is rewarded for making re-
sponses which are slower than true reactions,
then, he is assumed to make time estimates
from the reaction signal, rather than from
the warning signal.
The present experiment was designed to
provide a more stringent test of the anticipa-
tion model by observing the effect of different
degrees of FP variability on performance
under payoff bands positioned at various
latency bands. Before presenting detailed
predictions of the anticipation model for this
situation, its major assumptions are sum-
marized and some notation introduced.
The major assumption of the anticipation
model is that for given stimulus conditions
and a given S, there is an underlying dis-
tribution of true RTs which is unaffected by
stimulus uncertainty, at least when manipu-
lated by FP variability, and unaffected by
motivational aspects of the experiment such
as explicit payoffs. However, FP variability
and payoffs affect the proportion of time esti-
mates S makes. Time estimates are here de-
fined as voluntary estimates of a temporal
interval which are initiated by a stimulus and
terminated by a motor response.
Time estimates may be of two kinds, one
of which results in responses that are faster
than true reactions and the other, in re-
sponses that are slower. The first kind are
initiated by the warning signal and are esti-
mates of the FP duration + A t, where A t is
less than the true RT. These may occur
prior to or after the reaction signal. If
they occur prior to the signal, they are re-
corded as false reactions, and if they occur
after the signal, they are recorded as spuri-
ously fast RTs. These time estimates are
here denoted EWs, and differential rates of
their occurrence have been postulated pre-
viously to account for traditional FP effects
in RT.
The second kind of time estimates are ini-
tiated by the reaction signal and result in
RTs which are slower than true reactions.
These are here denoted ERs. They are not
assumed to play a role in accounting for FP
effects in traditional RT experiments, but
they are assumed to occur whenever 5s are
explicitly motivated to delay reactions, as is
the case in the present study. True reactions
are denoted Rs.
The model assumes that the distributions
of the three types of responses are unimodal
but that, as noted above, their means and
variances differ in consistent and significant
ways. Obviously, /ABW < MB < /*ER when
measured with respect to the onset of the
reaction signal; for the present experimental
conditions, the relationship among the vari-
ances is <72B < <T2BB < <T2EW-
PREDICTIONS OF THE MODEL
1. Predictions of the anticipation model for
the joint effect of band position and FP vari-
ability on RT variability, or more exactly
on the percentage of responses within the
payoff band (Pb), are summarized in Fig. 1.
As can be seen in Fig. 1, PD is an inverted
U-shaped function of band position for each
FP condition. Consistency is maximum at
the optimum band, decreases for slower-than-
optimum bands because 5" must introduce
a delay into his reactions (and the bigger the
delay, the more variability is introduced),
and decreases for faster-than-optimum bands
because a larger and larger proportion of EW
responses are made as band position de-
creases. Under the conditions of the present
experiment, EWs are more variable than
ERs because the former are estimates of
longer intervals. Thus the consistency func-
 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS
HIGH VAR. ft
MED. VAR. FP
LOW VAR. FP
OPTIMUM
* FAST SLOW
BAND POSITION
FIG. 1. Predictions of the anticipation model of
the effect of band position and FP variability on
the percentage of responses within the payoff band.
tion is lower on the fast side of the optimum
band than on the slow side.
The basic assumption of the model, that
FP variability does not affect true RT, taken
with the additional assumption that under the
optimum band 51 makes only true reactions,
leads to the prediction that FP variability
will have no effect on either the position of
the optimum band or on the absolute level
of consistency within that band. Under
faster-than-optimum bands, higher levels of
FP variability will have a deleterious effect
on consistency because the estimated interval
is itself variable, whereas at slower-than-
optimum bands, FP variability will not affect
response consistency because estimates are
made from the reaction signal, rather than
from the warning signal.
2. The anticipation model predicts that
the immediate FP effect will be present at
faster-than-optimum bands and absent at
optimum and longer bands. This is because
the immediate FP effect is assumed to be pro-
duced by EW responses and 5" is assumed
to make these only under faster-than-opti-
mum bands.
The present experiment also investigates
an alternative method of inducing -Ss to make
true reactions. It is based on the assump-
tion that 5"s "know" that true reactions are
more consistent than time estimates, thus
proper motivating conditions should elicit
their true RT distributions. In this method,
5"s are instructed to respond as consistently
as possible, and they are rewarded for con-
sistency on the basis of the number of re-
sponses in their most consistent, or modal,
latency band as determined at the end of
the session. The initial determination of
the modal band necessarily involves no feed-
back, but in a subsequent session S is given
information feedback in addition to payoffs
for responding within the same modal band
determined in the no feedback session. This
method is called the floating-band method, as
opposed to the previous fixed-band method
in which predetermined bands are systematic-
ally varied in position.
A final purpose of the present experiment
was to investigate the effect of payoff band
width under both the floating- and fixed-band
procedures.
THEORETICAL DISTRIBUTION OF RTs
A separate problem is that of the correct
theoretical distribution for simple RTs. The
anticipation model makes no assumption
about the distributions of true reactions or
time estimates other than that their distribu-
tion is unimodal. Various models of the reac-
tion process predict the ordinary gamma dis-
tribution (McGill, 1963), the general Erlang
or generalized gamma (McGill & Gibbon,
1965), and the negative binomial (LaBerge,
1962) for the distribution of Rs. Snodgrass
et al. (1967) found that their simple RT
distributions collected under 20- or 100-msec.
wide payoff bands were better fitted by the
double monomial (DM) distribution than by
the displaced gamma (with the starting point
a parameter) by a likelihood comparison,
whereas two-choice RT distributions were
better fitted by the displaced gamma. The
DM is composed of two power functions back
to back, meeting at the theoretical mode,
and has two characteristics found by Snod-
grass et al. (1967) to be typical of empiri-
cal simple RT distributions under band pay-
off conditions-extreme peakedness and high
tails. It was derived by Luce and Galanter
(1963) as the form for the response generali-
zation function in magnitude estimation. In
the present study, RT distributons were
analyzed for their theoretical distribution
by fitting the DM, normal, and exponential
distributions to each of the empirical distribu-
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT
tions;, and comparing the adequacy of fit of
each.
METHOD
Apparatus.The 6"s sat in an Industrial Acoustics
Co. acoustic chamber which attenuated outside noise
by 30-65 db. over the audible frequency range from
100 Hz. The warning and reaction signals were
short (S-msec.) high-intensity clicks produced by
discharging a capacitor through an amplifier and
then through a pair of earphones. The click when
measured on an oscilloscope had a rise time of
5 jttsec. to a maximum peak of 1.7 v. dc. The clicks
were presented to the right ear through Permoflux
PDR-8 earphones.
The FP durations were controlled by a syn-
chronized motor-driven cam switch and were ac-
curate to within 2-5 msec. For the fixed FP con-
dition (FP 1), the FP duration was always 944
msec.; for the medium-variability condition (FP 2),
two FPs, 944 and 980 msec., were presented ran-
domly; and for the high-variability condition (FP
3), the randomly presented FPs were 786 and 1,070
msec. Selection of the FPs was controlled by a
punched tape of probability .5 read by a Western
Union Teletype. The intertrial interval was 3 sec.
The 5" responded by depressing a microswitch
that required a small amount of travel. The clock
was started at the onset of the reaction signal (Si)
and latencies were timed to the nearest millisecond
by a Hewlett-Packard electronic counter and they,
along with the FP preceding the reaction signal,
were recorded by an associated printer. False reac-
tions were not timed, but their occurrence was
recorded by E. A three-section display panel in
front of >? provided feedback after every trial. The
feedback informed 5" of four possible events. A
red light indicated a false reaction, a minus ()
in the leftmost section of the panel a response after
Si but too fast for the band, a one (1) in the
middle section a response within the band, and a
plus (+) in the rightmost section a response too
slow for the band. The feedback was given manually
by E after she observed the RT on the electronic
counter, and thus it appeared to S at somewhat
random intervals after the reaction had been made.
A rough timing of these intervals indicated that
feedback was given somewhere between 300 and
400 msec, after the response.
The 5" started and stopped the series of trials by
a toggle switch. Verbal communication between E
and 5" was conducted via an intercom.
Subjects and procedure.-Five 5"s participated in
the experiment. Three, CP, ES, and AH, had had
extensive experience in similar RT experiments.
The remaining two, BR and MW, were naive 5"s
recruited through the University of Pennsylvania
student employment service with the promise of
good hourly pay. CP was female. No 5 reported
any hearing defect, and all 5s were right-handed
with the exception of ES, who nonetheless used his
right hand to respond.
Each 5 participated in at least 30 experimental
sessions. The first six were practice sessions de-
signed to give 6" experience with each of the pro-
cedures used in the experiment proper. Data from
these sessions are not reported here. There were
24 experimental sessions, each consisting of 600
reactions and lasting between 4 and 14 hr., depend-
ing on the number and duration of self-imposed
breaks 5" took. Sessions were normally run on
separate days, although occasionally two sessions
were run during the same day.
The 6"s received a base pay of $1.50 per session.
They received additional money depending on their
consistency of responding as measured by the
number of responses falling within the payoff band
in force. The payoff bands were of two types, float-
ing and fixed. The positions of the floating bands
were determined by 5's performance during sessions
in which no feedback was given. The 6" was in-
structed during the no-feedback (NFB) sessions
to respond as consistently as possible, and was told
that he would be paid on the basis of the number
of responses in the band of a prescribed width
that contained the maximum number of responses.
Each such band was used in a subsequent feedback
(FB) session. The conditions investigated during
the floating-band conditions were the three degrees
of FP variability and two band widths, 20 and 50
msec.
Fixed bands were determined prior to the experi-
ment and were the same for all 5s. Five 20-msec.-
wide fixed bands, 70-89, 90-109, 110-129, 130-149,
and 150-169 msec., were run with each of the
three FP conditions.
Three band widths'50, 20, and 5 msec.were
each run with the fixed foreperiod condition (FP 1)
and feedback. The locations of these three bands
were determined somewhat differently. The posi-
tions of the 50- and 20-msec.-wide bands were
determined by 5"s performance during NFB. These
are floating bands, as described above. The posi-
tion of the 5-msec. band was determined from S's
performance during fixed-band sessions under FP
1. That 5-msec. band of latencies within the opti-
mum payoff band under FP 1 which contained the
largest number of responses was selected as the
payoff band.
The amount of money won for each response
within the band varied with the band width and
was i$ for 50-msec.-wide bands, 4tf for 20-msec.-
wide bands, and 2^ for 5-msec.-wide bands. The
5"s received no payoff for responses outside the
band or for false reactions.
The 5 was allowed as many practice trials at
the beginning of the session as he wished. These
trials were not recorded, and he won no money
for them. The S"s were encouraged to win as much
as they could, and they showed every evidence of
being highly motivated to respond within the band
as much as possible. They were also encouraged
to refrain from responding if they felt their atten-
tion had wandered or they were not quite ready
when the reaction stimulus occurred. The purpose
 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS

distributions were plotted by a Control Data

ISO NO FEEPBMK FEEDBtCK Corporation 160A computer. For each S,
10 distributions were obtained with fixed
FPs and 14 with variable FPs, for a total
of 24 that each included 600 observations.
In addition, the data from the 14 variable FP
conditions were separated into the two dis-
tributions corresponding to each FP dura-
\ tion, thus generating 28 more distributions
of 300 observations each, for an overall total
of 52 distributions per 51.
Effect of Information Feedback
The floating-band conditions provide two
types of information: first, a comparison be-
tween performance under feedback compared
with no feedback, and second, a comparison
FIG. 2. Mean median RT over 6"s as a function of -S"s modal bands under floating-band con-
of immediate FP duration and feedback condition ditions with his optimum bands under fixed-
for the 20-msec. floating-band conditions. (The band conditions. The latter comparison al-
filled circle is for FP 1; unfilled circles connected
by solid lines, for FP 2; and unfilled circles con- lows us to determine whether 5 does in fact
nected by dotted lines, for FP 3. The numbers on produce true reactions when instructed to
the abscissa refer to FP durations, where 1 = 786 respond consistently. This comparison will
msec., 2 = 944 msec., 3 = 980 msec., and 4 = 1,070 be postponed to the section on fixed bands,
msec.) and only the effect of information feedback
will be considered here.
of this instruction was to attempt to eliminate out-
lying RTs caused by factors other than those Figure 2 presents average performance of
inherent in the reaction process. ,Ss under the 20-msec. band for no-feedback
Of the 24 experimental conditions, 8 were run (NFB) and feedback (FB) conditions under
under floating-band conditions, 2 of these under a each FP condition. The NFB plot shows
50-msec. band and FP 1, and 6 under a 20-msec. two of the results commonly reported in the
band, 2 per FP condition. Half of the floating-band
conditions were with feedback and half were with- literaturethat overall RT increases with
out. All >?s received the floating-band conditions FP variability, although the effect here only
first, followed by the 15 fixed-band conditions. The occurs between FP 3 and the other two FP
last condition run was the 5-msec. band under FP 1. conditions, and that RT is longer to the
RESULTS shorter FP in each of the variable FP condi-
tions (the immediate FP effect) indicated by
The data were analyzed by an IBM 7040 a negative slope on the plot. The effect of
computer, and some of the summary statis- feedback was to decrease both the magnitude
tics and all of the empirical and theoretical of the immediate FP effect and the influ-
ence of FP variability on overall RT, and
TABLE 1 to increase median RT under FPs 1 and 2.
COMPARISON OF FEEDBACK (FB) AND No-FEEDBACK Feedback also had the effect of increasing
(NFB) PERFORMANCE UNDER FLOATING BANDS
response consistency, both when measured by
Median RT
(msec.) IQR (msec.) Pi, (Percent-
age)
interquartile range (IQR) and by percent-
Band age of responses within the band (Pi,).
NFB FB NFB FB NFB FB Table 1 presents medians, IQRs, and Pb,
20 1 109 114 36 31 33 38 averaged across 5"s, for the three FP condi-
20 2 108 119 38 29 36 41 tions under the 20-msec. band and for FP 1
20 3 135 133 23 20 49 51
50 1 119 123 46 33 57 66 (constant FPs) under the 50-msec. band.
The data for individual Ss show the de-
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT

crease in IQR under FB in 16 of 20 distribu- 225

FOREPtOlOO 2 FOREPERIOO 3

tions, and the increase in Pb under FB in 14

li 1 ^
of 20 cases, whereas the increase in RT under
.{""
ISO

FB for FPs 1 and 2 occurred in 13 of 15 """

79 l{ '*
individual cases. The Ss responded most
consistently under the highest FP variabil- 229
ity condition (FP 3) regardless of feedback fifl
1}
condition. ISO
If '*
i;
Feedback, then, reduces RT variability, 79 ' " i"" ,.."""
and it appears to do so by eliminating very
fast responses, inasmuch as the median RTs Ki

are lengthened under FB even though the CP

location of the mode of the distribution, or at J 190

least of the modal band, remains essentially ! 79 .f"""'1 ,f.'"""

invariant. Indeed, it would be surprising if I
the mode of the distribution were affected S 229
by feedback since 5"s are given feedback and
payoffs for responding in exactly the same E ,80
ii 'i
band in which they responded most fre- 79 i f '*
1 ,f ' l! " f i l "
quently under no feedback.
229
Joint Effect of Band Location cs
and FP Variability ISO
li l{ 19 ' li l!
{

The 15 fixed-band conditions provide evi-

78 f " !" * ''
dence on the joint effect of band position and
FP variability when band position is prede- 2 3 4 9
termined by E. Figure 3 shows the effect of BAND

these two variables on median RT and IQR FIG. 3. Median RT and interquartile range for
for each 6" separately. The 5"s are generally each 5 and fixed-band-position. (The vertical line
able to respond so that their median RTs to the left of each set of measures indicates the
range of the band. The bands are numbered in
fall within the band, with the exception of the order from fastest to slowest, where 1 = 70-89 msec.,
fastest bands under FP 3. However, the 2 = 90-109 msec., 3=110-129 msec., 4=130-149
IQR is generally at a minimum at some in- msec., and S = 150-169 msec.)
termediate band location, and increases for
either faster or slower bands. criterion differed from that by a minimum
Figures 4 and 5 show the effect of band IQR criterion are noted by footnotes.
position and FP condition on the two mea- Considering first the location of the op-
sures of variability, Pb and IQR. Particu- timum bands, all but one 5" (MW) show
larly for the Pb measure, response con- identical or almost identical optimum bands
sistency is maximum at some intermediate regardless of FP variability condition, and
band location, designated as the optimum the values of Pb across FP variability condi-
band, and the optimum band location tends to tions are reasonably similar.
be the same for all three FP conditions. Comparing the locations of the optimum
Table 2 presents the locations of optimum and modal bands, although in every case but
bands, using the criterion of highest value of one there is some overlap, if only by a few
Pb, and, for comparison, the location of the milliseconds (the exception is for BR under
modal bands as determined from the floating- FP 3), the modal band locations are never
band conditions. The value of Pb for the exactly the same as the optimum band posi-
modal bands is for the feedback condition. tions. The overall level of consistency is
Cases in which the optimum band by the Pb higher under the optimum than under the.
 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS
PERCENT IN BAND INTERQUARTILE RANGE The data for 5 CP show this effect to the
most marked degree, and an analysis of her
FPI
FP2 RT distributions under FP 3 for Bands 1
FP3
and 2 indicates why. Essentially, her per-
formance under these fast bands was almost
indistinguishable from her performance un-
der the optimum band. Whereas she only
IO-LIO- responded within Payoff Band 1 when it
was in effect 3% of the time, and within Pay-
AH % ms off Band 2 when it was in effect 29% of the
50 so
/\
/ A ' V""
time, she responded within her optimum
40 band (Band 3) 52% of the time under Band
I/; 30 30 s 1 payoff and 48% of the time under Band 2
\ =- payoff. Both of these rates compare favor-
',' 20 20 ^<^^'
10' 10
ably with her response rate of 54% within
1 1 1 1 1 ct. ft 1 1 t t 1 Band 3 under Band 3 payoff. Other 5s show
similar but less dramatic tendencies.
Figures 6 and 7 show the combined em-
50 50 pirical RT distributions under each band
40- 40 for FP Cond. 1 and 3, respectively, along
30 30 with the best fitting DMs (continuous solid
20 20
lines). These DM fits will be discussed in a
later section.
10 '10

3
-0-1.0-
I -i- Immediate FP Effect
BAND POSITION
The effect of band location on the immedi-
FIG. 4. Percent responses within the payoff band
(left) and interquartile range (right) as a function ate FP effect is shown in Fig. 8 for each S
of band location for each FP condition, for S"s ES, separately and for the average across 5s. As
AH, and CP. in Fig. 2, a negative slope indicates the

PERCENT IN BAND INTERQUARTILE RANGE

modal bands (average Pb for the optimum
bands is 48% and for the modal bands is
43%), but whether this is due to an inoppor-
tune positioning of the modal band by 5s'
no-feedback performance or to the fact that
the optimum (fixed) band conditions were
run later in the series than the modal (float-
ing) band conditions is difficult to say.
However, it will be argued later that be-
cause of some of the characteristics of modal
band performance, 5s did not, in general,
adopt the optimum strategy (according to
the anticipation model) of making only true
reactions when instructed to respond consist-
ently.
Considering performance under the fixed-
band conditions, in general, the two measures
of response variability, Fb and IQR, show
an inverse correlation, with the notable ex- 5 I
BAND POSITION
ception of fast bands under FP 3. For
several 5s, both Pb and IQR tend to be low. FIG. S. Same as Fig. 4 for 5s MW and BR.
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT

TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF OPTIMUM AND MODAL BAND PERFORMANCE

Optimum bands Modal bands

5
FP 1 FP2 FP3 FP 1 FP2 FP3
CP
Band 110-129 110-129 110-129 100-119 102-121 122-141
Pb 54 46 54 43 44 48
BR
Band 110-129 110-129 110-129 120-139 100-119 143-162
Pb 42 44 40 36 22 47
AH
Band 90-109 110-129 110-129 102-121 95-114 113-132
Pb 48 41 52 39 43 54
ES
Band 90-1 09 110-129 90-109 91-110 97-116 104-123
Pb 66 64 65 60 66 61
MW
Band 110-129 150-169 130-149' 91-110 141-160 135-154
-Pb 32 33 43 14 28 46

Note.Bands are expressed in milliseconds; Pb in percentages.

The minimum IQR occurred for Band 110-129.

usual immediate FP effect. The immediate gressively diminished and at slow bands is
FP effect is large under fast bands, but as sometimes reversed in direction. Further-
band position is increased the effect is pro- more, differences among the median RTs

BAND I

BAND 2

SAND 3

BAND 4

BANDS

260 6 ioo 260 6 r& 2 0 0 0 1 0 0

.ILL^l
REACTION TIME IN MILLISECONDS

FIG. 6. RT distributions (triangles) and the fitted DMs (continuous solid line) obtained under fixed-
band conditions with FP 1. (The payoff band range is shown by the two vertical lines. Data are plotted
in lO-msec.-wide intervals except for the interval containing U. Each distribution consists of 600 RTs.
Fits of the DM rejected at the .05 level are indicated by asterisks.)
10 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS

.022
8AND I
1 -iO.
.022

f(RT)
I BAND 2

.022
BAND 3

.022
BAND 4

1
.022
BANDS

100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200 0 KX> 2OO 0 100 200
REACTION TIME IN MILLISECONDS

FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 6 for FP 3. (Each distribution consists of 600 RTs,

combined across both FP durations.)

obtained under the three FP conditions are
large under the fastest bands, but tend to dis-
appear as band position is increased.
An inspection of the distributions of RTs
to the separate FPs gives some indication
why the immediate FP effect disappears with
increased band position. These are shown
in Fig. 9 for 5 AH under FP 3 along with
the combined FP distributions. Here it is
apparent that RTs to the short FP are rela-
tively unaffected by band position, except
perhaps for Band 1, whereas RTs to the
long FP are markedly affected. At the fast-
est bands, there are a large number of ex-
tremely fast RTs to the long FP, which tend
to disappear as band position is increased.
The existence of such fast RTs lowers
median RT to the long FP, thereby produc-
ing the immediate FP effect. Such fast RTs
would be classified under the anticipation
model as spuriously fast RTs (i.e., time
estimates of the FP duration which occur
after the reaction signal). As such spuri-
ously fast RTs disappear with increased band
position, the RT to the long FP approaches
RT to the short FP, and the immediate FP
effect disappears.
The incidence of false reactions steadily
decreases with increases in fixed-band posi-
tion and is higher under FP 3 than the other
FP conditions at every band position, partic-
ularly under the fast bands. Although all SB
showed these qualitative effects, 5s vary ap-
preciably in absolute rate of false reactions,
from a low of .22% for ES to a high of
2.44% for AH.
Effect of Payoff Band Width
Three different bands widths5, 20, and
50 msec.were each run under the fixed
FP condition, FP 1. There were two float-
ing bands, 20 and 50 msec, wide, and two
fixed bands, the optimum 20-msec. band un-
der FP 1, and the 5-msec. band within the
optimum band containing the most responses.
Because of the method of locating the float-
ing bands, the 20-msec. band is not required
to be located within the 50-msec. band, al-
though four of the five 5s responded such
that this was the case. For those four, the
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT 11

ES MW AH IS CP AVERAGE

150

\4
S.4
o \4

2! 150-

N
3
0,.. \3
~

no

100

90
\,
eo
4 I 25 4 23 4 25 4
FOREPERIOD

FIG. 8. Median RT as a function of immediate FP duration for each S separately and for the mean
across 5"s. (The filled circle is for FP 1; unfilled circles connected by solid lines, for FP 2; and unfilled
circles connected by dotted lines, for FP 3. The number to the right of each point or set of points is the
payoff band.)

mean IQR is virtually identical (35 msec.)
under both band widths.
Because the 5-msec. band was chosen
within the optimum 20-msec. fixed band,
comparisons between these two band widths
are available for every 5". Every 5" except
CP responded more consistently within the
20- than the S-msec. band both by the IQR
and by the P\, measure. The mean IQR and
Pb for the optimum 20-msec. band was 22
msec, and 49%, and for the 5-msec. band,
25 msec, and 44%, where Pb is normalized
for the 20-msec. band. It would appear
from this comparison that instead of making
the empirical distribution more peaked, the
5-msec. band was somewhat disruptive of
performance.
Form of the Theoretical RT Distribution
Double monomial.The DM was fitted to
each of the 260 empirical RT distributions,
52 per S. Its distribution function is de-
scribed in Snodgrass et al. (1967). Its three
parameters, fo (the theoretical mode), and 8
and e (the two exponents), were estimated
by maximum likelihood techniques, as de-
scribed in Appendix B of Snodgrass et al.
(1967).
The DM was fitted to the empirical dis-
tribution by determining end points contain-
ing approximately 5% of the DM distribu-
tion and determining the percentage falling
within the corresponding intervals for the
empirical distribution. Such a procedure
generates 21 intervals because different esti-
mation techniques are used in the interval
before and after t0. Because these part inter-
vals are sometimes very narrow, there are
occasional large fluctuations in the empirical
data points around to. Chi-squares calcu-
lated between the two distributions indicate
that the fits of the DM to 152 of the 260 em-
12 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS

OVERALL DIST. RT TO SHORT FP RT TO LONG FP bined fits are not rejected at the .05 level).
.044 * Furthermore, the mean chi-square value for
* *
the combined distributions is 1.4 times that
.022 A
A
4 for the separate distributions. The 76 sep-

\
f
BAND I arate distributions whose DM fits could not
-B^U -^
P<<'
W^ ' L . L be rejected are approximately equally divided
.044
* between long and short FP distributions.
Comparison of the DM -with the normal
.022
-
< - ' and exponential.Because it is clear that
BAND 2
t, the DM fits are not satisfactory by a chi-
./
, '
y ~A \
square criterion, it seems desirable to deter-
.044 ^* * mine whether other theoretical distributions
<(RT) might do better, particularly with respect
.022 k [ to the two characteristicspeaked modes and
'J
BAND 5
high tailsthat both the DM and the empiri-
" J
' ^ cal distributions seem to share. To see
.044 ^
whether other distributions might do as well,
the fit of the DM was compared to the fits
.022 of the normal and exponential distributions
; ' ;>
BAND 4
with regard to just these two characteristics.
i

T
.044
.022
100 200
V. 0
iiiiiiinif
100
Sta.
200
RT IN MILLISECONDS
FIG. 9. Distributions of RTs to both FPs com-
bined (Overall Distribution) and to each individual
FP for S AH under FP 3. (The triangles are the
empirical data points and the continuous solid line is
the fitted DM. The payoff band range is shown
by the two vertical lines. Fits of the DM rejected
at the .05 level are indicated by asterisks.)
pirical distributions are rejected at the .05
level (df = 17), whereas the expected num-
ber is 13 under the hypothesis that simple
RTs have a DM distribution.
The number of rejected DM fits to the
combined RT distributions under fixed-band
conditions increases with FP variability and
is 16, 19, and 23 out of 25 for FP 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. As might be expected, the
DM does a better job of fitting distributions
of RTs to separate FPs than it does for the
combined FP distributions. Although there
are only twice as many separate as combined
RT distributions, the DM fits over five times
as many separate as combined distributions
(76 of 140 separate and only 15 of 70 com-
The normal was fit to the entire empirical
distribution by equating the empirical and
theoretical medians and interquartile ranges,
,1.
and the exponential was fit to the RT dis-
SAND 9 tributions from the median on by equating
0 100
/ V
200
the empirical 75th percentile and the theo-
retical median.
Three measures of goodness of fit were
compared, two for the tail of the distribution
and one for the mode. The two tail measures
were (a) the value of t such that F (t) =
.9995, denoted ta, and (6) the probability
beyond 250 msec., 1 -F (250), denoted p
(250). The measure of the peakedness of
the mode was (c) the probability within the
payoff band, Pb. In order to calculate PI, for
the exponential, the probability predicted
from the median to the upper limit of the
payoff band was calculated and normalized
for the empirical probability within the en-
tire payoff band. Distributions for which the
median exceeded the upper payoff band
limit were excluded. Because this analysis
was carried out after the DM had been fitted
to each distribution, two of the measures, ta
and Pb, were not readily available for every
distribution for the DM. The ta measure
was only compared for those distributions
having short empirical or DM tails, compris-
ing 183 of the 260 distributions. The Pb
comparison was made only for the 15 com-
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT
bined RT distributions under fixed-band con-
ditions, for a total of 75 distributions.
The results of this analysis are as fol-
lows : (a) The number of empirical observa-
tions with "outliers," or the number having
a longest observation exceeding ts, exceeds
by 94 the number expected by chance if the
normal were the correct theoretical distribu-
tion, is fewer by 7 than would be expected
if the exponential were the correct form for
the right half of the distribution, and the
DM is only off by 1 in predicting the number
of distributions with outliers, (b) For the
second tail comparison, p (250), the normal
underestimates the probability beyond 250
msec, by .0023 per distribution, the expo-
nential overestimates it by .0035, and the
DM overestimates it by only .0003. (c) For
the peakedness comparison, the normal over-
estimates the probability within the payoff
band by .015, the exponential slightly over-
estimates it by .002, and the DM overesti-
mates it by only .001.
Because in a previous study (Snodgrass
et al., 1967) the DM was found to fit simple
RT distributions under band payoff condi-
tions better than the gamma distribution by
a likelihood comparison, and because the
present empirical RT distributions appeared
to be very similar to those collected in that
study, the likelihood comparison of the
gamma and DM was not repeated here. In-
stead, the distributions were plotted by a pro-
cedure suggested by McGill (1963) in which
the logarithm of the probability that RT is
greater than some time t is plotted against t
on the abscissa. This procedure has the effect
of spreading out the tail of the distribution
so that it can be determined whether a dis-
tribution with an exponential tail, such as
the gamma, would fit the data. If the em-
pirical distribution when plotted in this way
exhibits a "candy-cane" shape in which the
tail is a straight line, then the distribution
has an exponential tail. Figure 10 shows
some representative plots of empirical and
DM distributions under fixed-band condi-
tions for all three FP conditions. As is clear
from Fig. 10, the empirical distributions
show quite marked deviations from linearity,
particularly beyond 1 F () = .10, al-
13
though the deviation from linearity would not
be very marked if the plot were stopped at
that point. This fact is important because
the usual plotting procedure is to end the
plot at l-F ( 0 = . 1 0 (e.g., Carterette,
Friedman, & Cosmides, 1965; Greenbaum,
1963; McGill, 1963). Furthermore, even
the theoretical DM, which has a power func-
tion rather than an exponential tail, does not
exhibit very marked deviations from linearity
on the plot. This suggests that this pro-
cedure is not very sensitive to deviations
from exponential tails, and that it may often
lead to erroneous conclusions about the shape
of the distribution.
DISCUSSION
Fit of the Anticipation Model
Fixed-band performance.A comparison of
the predictions of the model for fixed-band con-
ditions (Fig-. 1) with the results presented in
Fig. 4 and 5 indicates that the data for three S's,
BR, ES, and CP, are reasonably well fit by
the model, whereas for MW and AH the fit
is rather poor. Perhaps the S whose results
most closely conform to those predicted by
the model is BR, although every 51 exhibits
some of the predicted effects.
The most crucial prediction of the model is
that the location of the optimum band and the
degree of consistency under it will be invari-
ant across FP variability conditions for indi-
vidual .S's. With regard to location, .9s CP
and BR had the same optimum band under all
three FP conditions, ES and AH had very
nearly the same optimum bands, and MW had
a different optimum band for each FP condition.
However, the results for MW are generally
more erratic than those for the other 5s. With
regard to consistency under the optimum band,
ES and BR performed with about the same
degree of consistency under all FPs, CP was
almost the same, and AH and MW differed con-
siderably in consistency from one FP condition
to another.
The model also predicts that RT variability
under faster-than-optimum bands will be dif-
ferentially affected by FP variability, whereas
variability under slower-than-optimum bands
will not be affected by FP condition. The pre-
diction for fast bands is confirmed for all 6"s
except MW but only between FP 3 and the
other two FP conditions, and every 5" without
14 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS

FORgPERIOD I

-2

100 200 0 100 ZOO 0 100 200

TIME t IN MILLISECONDS

FORE PERIOD 2

0
-I
-2

(9 -I
O

-3
100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200
TIME t IN MILLISECONDS
FOREPERIOD 3

100 200 0 100 200 0 100 200

TIME t IN MILLISECONDS
FIG. 10. Log of probability that RT is greater than t against t on abscissa, for representative 5s under
each FP condition for the fixed-band conditions. (Band location is from fastest to slowest from left to
right, and band number is given to the left of each plot. The triangles are the empirical data points plotted
in 10-msec. intervals, and the continuous line is the fitted DM.)

exception performed the worst under FP 3
under the fastest band. The lack of a difference
between FP 1 and FP 2 is perhaps not too
surprising in light of the small objective and
subjective variability in FP 2 (the short FP
differed from the long FP by only 36 msec.).
In fact, only one 5" became aware it was a
variable condition.
Under slower-than-optimum bands, two 5s,
ES and BR, exhibit the superposition of the
three FP functions predicted by the model, and
any deviation from this pattern is always in the
direction of more consistent responding under
FP 3.
Another line of evidence supporting the model
is the fact that the incidence of false reactions
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT 15

steadily decreases with band position. Some- SHOR

what paradoxically, however, in light of the

interpretation of FP 3 responding under fast
bands, false reaction rate is much higher for FP
3 under fast bands than for the other FP con-
ditions. This finding is interpreted as indi-
cating not that more EW responses are made I I I I

under FP 3 but rather that of those made, a

much higher proportion are recorded as false
reactions. In contrast, although the absolute
proportion of EWs is assumed to be higher
under FP 1 and FP 2, many more are recorded
as spuriously fast RTs rather than as false
reactions.
Immediate FP effect.The model says that
the immediate FP effect is obtained whenever
S makes some EW responses to the longer FP
duration, and that under the fixed-band pro-
cedure the immediate FP effect should be ob-
tained for shorter-than-optimum bands and dis-
M -
appear for optimum and longer bands. An
inspection of Fig. 8 indicates that this prediction 40 -
is substantiated by the data. Furthermore, Fig.
9 provides qualitative evidence that the im-
mediate FP effect is obtained at fast bands be-
cause of the occurrence of highly variable and
spuriously fast RTs. This has the effect of 0 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 HO 150 160

lowering median RT to the longer compared MEDIAN RT IN MSEC

to the shorter FP duration; however, it should
also have the effect of increasing the variabil-
ity of RTs to the longer FP. The model thus
predicts that whenever the immediate FP effect
is obtained, RT to the longer FP should be
more variable than RT to the shorter FP.
Figure 11 presents the relation between
median RT and IQR of the pairs of separate
RT distributions to each of the two FP dura-
tions. All 14 of the variable FP conditions are
included in the plot, but the data for S MW
have been omitted as they show no consistent
trend. A left-pointing arrow indicates the
immediate FP effect and a left-pointing arrow
which also points up indicates the predicted re-
lation. For every .S" except ES, most of the
left-pointing arrows point up.
Ignoring for a moment the direction of the
arrows, there is a decided tendency for there to
be a U-shaped relation between IQR and
median RT. This effect has been noted previ-
ously for the combined RT distributions, but is
also apparent for the separate RT distributions.
The model says that RT distributions having in-
termediate median RTs and low IQRs consist
primarily of Rs, those of low medians and high
IQRs, of EWs, and those of high medians and
high IQRs, of ERs.
FIG. 11. Relation between median RT and IQR
for RT distributions to individual FPs in the vari-
able FP conditions. (Left-pointing arrows indicate
the immediate FP effect.)
Taking into account both the relationship
between IQR and median RT, which indicates
the type of response, and the direction of the
arrows, which indicates the FP preceding the
response, the strategies employed by 5s can be
summarized. When they are fast, all of them
tend to react to the short FP and make antici-
patory time estimates (EWs) to the long FP.
This tendency is indicated by left- and upward-
pointing arrows in the left-hand side of the
figure, and accounts for the immediate FP effect
observed at fast-band positions. When they
are slow, three of the four appear to continue
to react to the short FP but to make time esti-
mates from the reaction signal (ERs) to the
long FP. This tendency is indicated by right-
and upward-pointing arrows in the right side
of the figure, and results in an inverse im-
mediate FP effect at slow bands. In contrast,
when 6" ES is slow, he appears to react to the
long FP and to make ERs to the short FP.
This strategy produces an immediate FP effect
at slow bands but does so by a process exactly
16 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS

opposite to the one which produces it at fast even though neither of the component distribu-
bands. tions differed appreciably from, e.g., the normal.
In general then, 5"s under slower-than-opti- To investigate this possibility, the author at-
mum bands adopt the strategy of reacting to a tempted to identify those empirical distributions
signal preceded by one FP duration, and making composed primarily of true reactions so that the
delayed reactions to a signal preceded by the comparisons of fits of the three theoretical
other FP duration. Why they should be unable distributions could be repeated on this subset.
to make delayed reactions to either FP duration The anticipation model suggests that R dis-
is puzzling and at present unexplained. tributions for a given 5" have a high proportion
Floating-band performance.The floating-, or of responses within that S"s optimum band.
modal, band procedure, which was considered as Accordingly, the 10 empirical distributions per
an alternative to the fixed-band method for de- S having the highest proportion of responses
termining the location of the optimum band, within his optimum band were selected for
was not successful in producing a high propor- analysis. The optimum bands for ^s CP, BR,
tion of R responses, to judge from the data. and AH were taken to be 110-129 msec., for
For one thing, the location of the modal bands ES, 90-109 msec., and MW was omitted from
differed substantially from one FP condition the analysis. Of the 40 distributions so selected,
to another, particularly between the two lowest 23 were distributions to the separate FPs (14
FP variability conditions (FP 1 and FP 2) and of these to the short FP), 13 were combined
the high-variability condition (FP 3). Fur- distributions to both FPs, and 4 were to the
thermore, Ss responded more consistently under fixed FP condition.
optimum bands than under modal bands, and the In terms of goodness of fit, the DM did some-
mean immediate FP effect was less under opti- what worse with these R distributions than with
mum than under modal bands (.6 msec. vs. 3.1 the entire set of distributions. The DM fit
msec.). Taken together, these observations sug- only 14 (35%) of the 40 distributions whereas
gest that -S"s made more time estimates than true it fit 108 (42%) of the entire set of 260 dis-
reactions with modal bands than with optimum tributions. In terms of the specific characteris-
bands. Furthermore, it would appear that this tics of peaked modes and high tails, the com-
tendency is particularly strong in the absence parisons among the DM, normal, and expo-
of information feedback since, as was noted nential were repeated for these 40 distributions.
earlier, median RT increased, variability de- The ta comparisons were available for 37
creased, and the extent of the immediate FP distributions, the p (250) comparisons for all
effect decreased under feedback compared with 40 of them, and the peakedness measure for
no feedback. only 9.
The R comparisons present a somewhat dif-
Theoretical Distribution of RTs ferent picture from the overall comparisons.
It seems clear that simple RT distributions The exponential now does a better job than
obtained under band payoff conditions are both the DM in accounting for peakedness (although
more highly peaked and have higher tails than it underestimates it somewhat) and it does
can be accounted for by traditional distribu- about as well as the DM in the tail compari-
tions for RT, such as the normal, exponential,
sons. As in the previous comparisons, the nor-
and gamma distributions. The DM fits the em-
pirical RT distributions better because it de- mal underestimates both tail measures and over-
scribes both the extreme peakedness and the estimates peakedness. However, the exponen-
high tails that are characteristic of these dis- tial and DM also underestimate the probability
tributions. The observed outliers may be true beyond 250 msec., in contrast to their perform-
reaction times, in which case the DM probably ances for the entire set of distributions.
also approximately fits the true reaction time Although the results of this analysis are by no
distributions, or they may be the more variable means conclusive, especially in light of the few
time estimates. If the outliers are time esti- distributions available for the peakedness com-
mates, then it is possible that the observed dis- parison, they do suggest that one reason the DM
tributions are composed of a mixture of two does so well for the empirical distributions as
distributions: true reactions which have a small a group is that it accounts for the characteristics
variance and time estimates which have a large of a mixture of two distributionstrue reac-
variance. This would produce an overall dis- tions which are highly peaked and time esti-
tribution that is both peaked and high-tailed mations which are highly variable.
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT
Sequential Effects
A separate question from that of the theo-
retical distribution of RTs is the extent of
sequential dependencies among the trial-ordered
RTs. Bertelson (1961) has reported significant
sequential dependencies among choice RTs;
these were strongly dependent on the Markovian
properties of the stimulus presentation schedule.
Weiss, Laties, Siegel, and Goldstein (1966) re-
port both long-term and short-term cyclic effects
in interresponse times in monkeys exposed to
a DRL schedule of reinforcement. They em-
ployed the method of spectral analysis to evalu-
ate these effects.
For the present experiment, the extent of
sequential effects was evaluated for all the data
by calculating the distribution of differences
between RTs on Trial n and Trial n + 1 (the
one-trial difference distribution), and for the
four paired feedback-no-feedback conditions by
the technique of spectral analysis.
The ratio of the variance of the one-trial dif-
ference distribution to that of the RT distribu-
tion was calculated and its mean value across
^s and conditions found to be 1.75; the ex-
pected value on the hypothesis of independent
trials is 2.00. Of the 120 distributions analyzed,
114 have ratios less than 2.00. The average lag
one autocorrelation coefficient (i.e., the Pearson
r between RTs on Trial and Trial n + 1) is
+.132. However the mean lag one autocorrela-
tion for the four NFS conditions is +.231 com-
pared with a mean of +.109 for the four corre-
sponding FB conditions. Of the 20 paired
FB-NFB comparisons, 17 NFB conditions have
higher autocorrelations.
Schoeffler (1965) has reported similar re-
sults in a two-choice RT experiment in which
6"s categorized a light flash as being "long" or
"short." He found that the lag one auto-
correlations between latencies tended to be
positive. Although no means are reported, it
is clear from his figures that the autocorrela-
tions are higher in the conditions without infor-
mation feedback than they are with feedback.
In order to determine whether sequential ef-
fects lasting over more than one trial were
present, the data for the eight paired FB-NFB
conditions were analyzed by the method of spec-
tral analysis, following the procedure outlined
inAbelson (1953).
Of the 40 distributions analyzed by the
method of spectral analysis, all but one showed
significant deviations (p < .05) from a random
series, and in all but two cases, slow frequencies
predominated, i.e., the spectrum was decreasing.
17
Comparisons were made between the paired
NFB-FB conditions on two criteria: the mean
absolute amplitude over frequencies and the
degree of preponderance of slow over fast fre-
quencies. Of the 20 comparisons, NFB had
higher mean absolute amplitude in 15 cases and
a greater preponderance of low frequencies in
16 cases.
Figure 12 shows a typical example of spectra
for NFB and FB sessions. These are based
on data for CP under the 20-msec. floating
band and FP 1. Comparisons between the spec-
tra for NFB and FB indicate that both the
mean amplitude of the component frequencies
and the degree of predominance of low over
high frequencies is greater for NFB than FB.
Below each spectrum is the series of RTs
from which it was calculated plotted in blocks
of various trial lengths and overlaps.
In the present experiment, the intertrial inter-
val was fixed at 3 sec. Thus the lowest de-
tectable frequency has a cycle length of 2 min.
(40 observation points) and the highest fre-
quency, a cycle length of 6 sec. (2 observa-
tions). There may be lower frequency compo-
nents than one cycle per 2 min. present in the
data, but these would not be detected by the
present analysis.
Some of the 5"s reported being aware of slow
cyclic changes during the feedback sessions.
They would note on the basis of feedback in-
formation that their times drifted from too fast
for the payoff band, through the band, to too
slow for the band, although subjectively they felt
themselves responding in exactly the same
way. It may be that slow fluctuations were
more pronounced during no feedback because
the 5"s during feedback worked against this
tendency to drift, or it may be that the infor-
mation feedback itself disrupted whatever un-
derlying process accounts for the slow cyclic
changes. On the basis of the present data,
there is no way of deciding which of these two
alternatives is more likely.
CONCLUSIONS
The present data are consistent with the hy-
pothesis that each 5* has a distribution of true
reaction times which is highly peaked and may
have a high tail, but that in an RT experiment
he does not necessarily exhibit this distribution
directly. The exact nature of the true RT dis-
tribution is undoubtedly affected by various
characteristics of the stimulation conditions, in-
cluding the reaction stimulus, but it appears to
be unaffected by either payoffs or FP variabil-
ity (at least for fixed mean FP).
18 JOAN GAY SNODGRASS

NO FEEDBACK FEEDBACK

to

b-zoo-

d-0
LOCK* OF TRIAL* LOCKS Of TRIAL*

FIG. 12. Spectral analysis (a) and mean RTs over blocks of 600 trials (b-d) for various block sizes
and overlaps for the NFB and FB sessions of CP under the 20-msec. floating band and FP 1. ([a] The
p is frequency, where 0 indicates one cycle per 40 observation points and 20 indicates one cycle per 2
observation points, and Ut is the corresponding power of frequency p. The upper and lower lines indicate
95% confidence limits for the U,. [b] Blocks of 20 trials with a 3-trial overlap, [c] Blocks of 6 trials
with a 3-trial overlap, [d] Blocks of single trials with no overlap. The horizontal lines indicate the payoff
band in force. Mean RTs > 2SO msec, are plotted as 250 msec.)

The present experiment suggests that the true
reaction time distribution may be observed
directly when one uses a fairly high degree of
FP variability, a fairly narrow optimum band
payoff (where optimum means that location
which maximizes the proportion of responses
within the band), and information feedback.
The band width which minimizes response vari-
ability appears to lie somewhere between 5 and
50 msec. Feedback after every response is
desirable because it decreases RT variability
which it appears to do by decreasing the fre-
quency of voluntary estimations of the FP dura-
tion and by decreasing the amplitude of natur-
ally occurring slow sequential changes.
There is strong evidence that the immediate
FP effect is due to anticipatory time estimates
of the longer FP, and that these may be almost
completely eliminated by using an optimum
payoff band.
Although the DM fits the entire set of empiri-
cal distributions better than the exponential or
normal, this superiority of fit appears to be
due to the fact that these distributions are
mixtures of true reactions and time estimates.
Empirical distributions thought to contain pri-
marily true reactions appear to be too highly
peaked for the DM, too high-tailed for the
normal, and well characterized by an expo-
nential fitted to the right side of the distribution.
REFERENCES
ABELSON, R. P. Spectral analysis and the study of
individual differences in the performance of
routine, repetitive tasks. Princeton, N. J.: Edu-
cational Testing Service, Research Bulletin RB-
53-2, 1953.
BERTELSON, P. Sequential redundancy and speed in
a serial two-choice responding task. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1961, 13,
90-102.
CARTERETTE, E. C., FRIEDMAN, M. P., & COSMIDES,
R. Reaction-time distributions in the detection
of weak signals in noise. Journal of the Acous-
tical Society of America, 1965, 38, 531-542.
DRAZIN, D. H. Effects of foreperiod, foreperiod
variability, and probability of stimulus occur-
rence on simple reaction time. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 1961, 62, 43-50.
 FOREPERIOD EFFECTS IN SIMPLE RT
GREENBAUM, H. B. Simple reaction time: A case
study in signal detection. (Doctoral dissertation,
Columbia University) Ann Arbor, Mich.: Uni-
versity Microfilms, 1963. No. 63-7421.
KARLIN, L. Reaction time as a function of fore-
period duration and variability. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology, 1959, 58, 185-191.
KLEMMER, E. T. Time uncertainty in simple reac-
tion time. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1956, SI, 179-184.
KLEMMER, E. T. Simple reaction time as a func-
tion of time uncertainty. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1957, 54, 195-200.
LABERGE, D. A recruitment theory of simple be-
havior. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 375-396.
LUCE, R. D., & GALANTER, E. Psychophysical scal-
ing. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter
(Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology.
Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1963.
MC&LL, W. J. Stochastic latency mechanisms.
In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.),
Handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol. 1.
New York: Wiley, 1963.
McGiLL, W. J., & GIBBON, J. The general-gamma
distribution and reaction times. Journal of
Mathematical Psychology, 1965, 2, 1-18.
NICKERSON, R. S. Response time to the second of
two successive signals as a function of absolute
19
and relative duration of intersignal interval. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 21, 3-10.
SCHOEFFLER, M. S. Stimulus, response, and rein-
forcement factors as determinants of sequential
effects in psychophysical experiments. Sym-
posium presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, September
1965.
SNODGRASS, J. G., LUCE, R. D., & GALANTER, E.
Some experiments on simple and choice reaction
time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967,
75, 1-17.
WEISS, B., LATIES, V. G., SIEGEL, L., & GOLDSTEIN,
D, A computer analysis of serial interactions in
spaced responding. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 1966, 9, 619-626.
WOODROW, H. The measurement of attention.
Psychological Monographs, 1914, 17(5, Whole
No. 76).
WOODROW, H. The reproduction of temporal inter-
vals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1930,
13, 473-499.
WOODROW, H. Individual differences in the repro-
duction of temporal intervals. American Journal
of Psychology, 1933, 45, 271-281.
(Received June 17, 1968)