Response-repetition costs in choice-RT tasks: Biased expectancies or response inhibition?

Druey, Michel D (2014) Response-repetition costs in choice-RT tasks: Biased expectancies or response inhibition? Acta Psychologica, 145. pp. 21-32. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.10.015

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Repetition effects are often viewed as informative regarding the cognitive mechanisms of action control. One particular finding, namely costs for repeating the same response in subsequent trials, especially challenges theorizing. Costs for response repetitions have recently been reported in task-switch studies on task-switch trials (whereas benefits usually arise in task-repetition trials), but also in some choice-RT task studies. In three experiments, two of the most successful accounts for the response-repetition costs in choice-RT task studies and task switching were tested: an expectancy-based explanation, and an inhibition-based account. Using a choice-RT task introduced by Smith (1968) and manipulating the response-stimulus interval (RSI) and the categorizability of the stimuli, some specific predictions of the two accounts were tested. The results clearly revealed that expectancy-based explanations fail to account for the observed patterns of effects, whereas they are well in line with the predictions from the inhibition-based account. Finally, the results are further discussed with respect to alternative accounts from the field of task switching.

Item Type:	Article
Article Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Learning & Memory; Attention; Motor Processes; Action control; Expectancy; Response inhibition; Sequential effects; Task switching
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions:	Schools and Research Institutes > School of Education and Science
Research Priority Areas:	Health, Life Sciences, Sport and Wellbeing
Depositing User:	Anne Pengelly
Date Deposited:	10 Jan 2017 15:00
Last Modified:	31 Aug 2023 09:05
URI:	https://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/4249

University Staff: Request a correction | Repository Editors: Update this record