Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[15] [16] Similarly, increasing the duration of a stimulus available in a reaction time task was found to produce slightly faster reaction times to visual [15] and auditory stimuli, [17] though these effects tend to be small and are largely consequent of the sensitivity to sensory receptors. [8]
In the IVA-2 CPT, clients are told that they will see or hear the numbers "1" or "2" and that they are to click the mouse when presented with a visual or auditory "1" and inhibit clicking when presented with a "2". The task is made more challenging by the shifting of modalities between the visual and auditory stimuli.
A high level of S–R compatibility is typically associated with a shorter reaction time, whereas a low level of S-R compatibility tends to result in a longer reaction time, a phenomenon known as the Simon effect. The term "stimulus-response compatibility" was first coined by Arnold Small in a presentation in 1951. [1]
To do this, they increased the proportion of auditory targets, which resulted in faster reaction times to unimodal auditory targets than to unimodal visual targets. [6] Participants showed a small (nonsignificant) bias towards making more erroneous unimodal auditory responses, and no reversal of the Colavita effect was observed.
An example of visual capture is the ventriloquism effect, that occurs when an individual's visual system locates the source of an auditory stimulus at a different position than where the auditory system locates it. When this occurs, the visual cues will override the auditory ones.
Upon experimentation, participants were tested with a PRP paradigm in which the first task was an auditory task and the second task was a visual two choice task. Results indicated that there is an overall decrease in reaction time, exhibiting a psychological refractory period effect, however, there was no effect due to varying levels of ...
Two visual stimuli, inside someone's field of view, can be successfully regarded as simultaneous up to five milliseconds. [19] [20] [21] In the popular essay "Brain Time", David Eagleman explains that different types of sensory information (auditory, tactile, visual, etc.) are processed at different speeds by different neural architectures. The ...
Iconic memory, for example, holds visual information for approximately 250 milliseconds. [7] The SM is made up of spatial or categorical stores of different kinds of information, each subject to different rates of information processing and decay. The visual sensory store has a relatively high capacity, with the ability to hold up to 12 items. [8]