Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:21:58.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Absolute timing of mental activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Gerald S. Wasserman  and
King-Leung Kong
Gerald S. Wasserman
Affiliation:
Sensory Coding Laboratory, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47906
King-Leung Kong
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53713
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new tool that may measure certain absolute temporal properties of information processing in intact organisms is suggested by. investigations of temporal summation in single nerve cells. Two findings have led to this suggestion: One, the form of the temporal summation function (relating the intensity and duration required to evoke a criterion neural signal) depends on the analysis used by the investigator. Corresponding form variations occur in behavioral studies when the observer's task is varied. Two, the critical durations of fixed neural signals depend on the latency of the feature of the signal chosen as criterion; early features yield short critical durations and vice versa. The critical duration also varies in behavioral studies if one varies the observer's task, keeping the stimulus ensemble fixed.

These data lead to two inferences: One, the form of a behavioral temporal-summation function expresses the kind of hidden mental analysis mediating that behavior. Two, a behavioral critical duration is an indicator of the absolute timing of the hidden mental analysis mediating that behavior.

Keywords

information processingtemporal summationcritical durationreaction timesingle-cell recordingvision.
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 243 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, R. C., Holmgren, J. E., and Juola, J. F.Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display. Perception and Psycho-physics. 6: 321–26, 1969.Google Scholar
Baylor, D. A., and Hodgkin, A. L.Changes in time scale and sensitivity in turtle photoreceptors. Journal of Physiology (London). 242: 729–58, 1974.Google Scholar
Bloch, A. M.Experiences sur la vision. Memoires de la Société de Biologie. 37: 493–95, 1885.Google Scholar
Bridgeman, B.Correlates of metacontrast in single cells of the cat visual system. Vision Research. 15: 91–99, 1975.Google Scholar
Brindley, G. S.Physiology of the Retina and Visual Pathway. Second ed.Balti more: Williams and Wilkens, 1970.Google Scholar
Bruder, G. E., and Kietzman, M. C.Visual temporal integration for threshold, signal detectability, and reaction time measures. Perception and Psycho-phyics. 13: 293–300. 1973Google Scholar
Charpentier, A.Recherches sur la persistance des impressions retiniennes et sur les excitations lumineuses de courte durée. Paris: Steinheil, 1890.Google Scholar
Cone, R. A.The rat electroretinogram, II: Bloch's Law and the latency mechanism of the b-wave. Journal of General Physiology. 47: 1,107–16, 1964.Google Scholar
Donchin, E.A multivariate approach to the analysis of average evoked potentials. IEEE Transactions on Bio-Medical Engineering. 13: 131–39, 1966.Google Scholar
Easland, G. S., and Wasserman, G. S.Multiple intracellular contributions to light adaptation in Limulus. Vision Research. 19: 1–8, 1979.Google Scholar
Efron, R.The measurement of perceptual duration. Studium Generale. 23: 550–61, 1970.Google Scholar
Ekman, G., and Gustafsson, U.Threshold values and the psychophysical function in brightness vision. Vision Research. 8: 747–58, 1968.Google Scholar
Enroth-Cugell, C., and Robson, J. C.The contrast sensitivity of the retinal ganglion cell of the cat. Journal of Physiology (London). 187: 517–52, 1966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsten, G., and Wasserman, G. S.Masking by light in Limulus receptors. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Pshychology. 92: 778–84, 1978.Google Scholar
Fuortes, M. G. F., and Hodgkin, A. L.Changes in time scale and sensitivity in the ommatidia of Limulus. Journal of Physiology (London). 172: 239–63, 1964.Google Scholar
Fuortes, M. G. F., and Yeandle, S.Probability of occurrence of discrete potential waves in the eye of Limulus. Journal of General Physiology. 47: 443–63, 1964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, C. H., Bartlett, N. R., Brown, J. L., Hsia, Y., Mueller, C. G., and Riggs, L. R.Vision and Visual Perception. New York: Wiley, 1965.Google Scholar
Graham, F. K.The more or less startling effects of weak prestimulation. Psychophysiology. 12: 238–48, 1975.Google Scholar
Hartline, H. K.Intensity and duration in the excitation of single photoreceptor units. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology. 5: 229–47, 1934.Google Scholar
Hartline, H. K., Wagner, H. G., and MacNichol, E. R.The peripheral origins of nervous activity in the visual system. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology. 17: 125–41, 1952.Google Scholar
Hood, D. C., and Grover, B. G.Temporal summation of light by a vertebrate visual receptor. Science. 184: 1003–5, 1974.Google Scholar
Hunter, W. S., and Sigler, M.The span of visual discrimination as a function of time and intensity of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 26: 160–79. 1940.Google Scholar
Jameson, D.Threshold and suprathreshold relations in vision. Die Farbe. 14: 128–36, 1965.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D.Time-intensity reciprocity under various conditions of adaptation and backward masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 71: 543–49, 1966.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Norman, J.The time-intensity relation in visual perception as a function of the observer's task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 68: 215–20, 1964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kantowitz, B. H. Double stimulation. In: Kantowitz, B. H. (ed.). Human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition, Hillsdale N. J.: Erlbaum Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Kaswan, J., and Young, S.Stimulus exposure time, brightness, and spatial factors as determinants of visual perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65: 113–23, 1963.Google Scholar
Kolers, P. A. Some psychological aspects of pattern recognition. In: Kolers, P. A. and Eden, M. (eds.). Recognizing Patterns. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Kong, K.-L., and Wasserman, G. S.Temporal summation in the receptor potential of the Linmlus lateral eye: Comparison between retinnla and eccentric cells. Sensory Processes. 2: 9–20. 1978a.Google Scholar
Changing response measures alters temporal summation in the receptor and spike potentials of the Limulus lateral eye. Sensory Processes. 2:21–31. 1978b.Google Scholar
Two linear rules relate the latencies of visual responses to their critical durations. Sensory Processes. 2:1–8. 1978c.Google Scholar
Libet, B. Brain stimulation and conscious experience. In: Eccles, J. C. (ed.), Brain and Conscious Experience. New York: Springer, 1966.Google Scholar
Electric stimulation of cortex in human subjects and conscious sensory aspects. In: Iggo, A. (ed.), Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Volume II: Somatosensory System. New York: Springer, 1973.Google Scholar
Neuronal versus subjective timing, for a conscious sensory experience. In: Buser, P. (ed.), Cerebral Correlates of Conscious Experience. Elsevier, North Holland Biomedical Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, H. W., Myers, N. A., and Grant, D.A Radial localization of a single stimulus as a function of luminance and duration of exposure. Journal of the Optical Society of America. 45: 76–78, 1955.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D., and Green, D. M.A neural timing theory for response times and the psychophysies of intensity. Psychological Review. 79: 14–57, 1972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mansfield, R. J. W.Latency functions in human vision. Vision Research. 13: 2219–35, 1973.Google Scholar
Massaro, D. W.Experimental Psychology and Information Processing. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1975.Google Scholar
Matin, L., and Bowen, R. W.Measuring the duration of perception. Perception and Psychophysies. 20: 66–76, 1976.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A.The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 63: 81–97, 1956.Google Scholar
Pachella, R. G. The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In: Kantowitz, B. H. (ed.) Human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Platt, J. R.Strong inference. Science. 146: 347–53, 1964.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R.The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.Google Scholar
Purple, R. L., and Dodge, F. A.Interaction of excitation and inhibition in the eccentric cell in the eye of Limulus. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology. 30: 529–37, 1965.Google Scholar
Raab, D., and Fehrer, E.The effect of stimulus duration and luminance on visual reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 64: 326–27, 1962.Google Scholar
Ratliff, F., Hartline, H. K., and Miller, W. H.Spatial and temporal aspects of retinal inhibitory interaction. Journal of the Optical Society of America. 53: 110–20, 1963.Google Scholar
Schiller, P. H.Single unit analyses of backward visual masking in the cat lateral geniculate nucleus. Vision Research. 8: 855–66, 1968.Google Scholar
Schlosberg, H.A probability formulation of the Hunter-Sigler effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 38: 15–67, 1948.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. S.Two visual systems. Science. 163: 895–902, 1969.Google Scholar
Snodderly, D. M. JrProcessing of visual inputs by brain of Limulus. Journal of Neurophysiology. 34: 588–611, 1971.Google Scholar
Sternberg, S.The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donder's method. Acta Psychologica. 30: 276–315. 1969a.Google Scholar
Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments. American Scientist. 57:421–57. 1969b.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S.Neural events and the psychophysical law. Science. 170: 1043–50, 1970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theios, J., Smith, P. G., Haviland, S. E., Traupmann, J., and Moy, M. G.Memory scanning as a serial self-terminating process Journal of Experimental Psychology. 97: 323–36, 1973.Google Scholar
Theois, J., and Walter, D. G.Stimulus and response frequency and sequential effects in memory scanning reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 6: 1092–99, 1974.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. T.Some results concerning the identifiability of parallel and serial processes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 25: 168–99, 1972.Google Scholar
Issues and models concerning the processing of a finite number of inputs. In: Kantowitz, B. H. (ed.) Human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Uttal, W. R.The Psychobiology of Sensory Coding. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. S.Linear electrophysiological and psychophysical functions near visual threshold. Vision Research. 9: 437, 1969.Google Scholar
Limulus psychophysies: Temporal summation in the ventral eye. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 107:276–86, 1978.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. S., Felsten, G., and Easland, G. S.Receptor saturation and the psychophysical function. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 17:Supplement page 155 (abstract), 1978.Google Scholar
The psychophysical function: Harmonizing Fechner and Stevens. Science. 204:85–87, 1979.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. S., and Kong, K.-L.Illusory correlation of brightness enhancement and transients in the nervous system. Science. 184: 911–913, 1974.Google Scholar
Temporal summation in a photoreceptor: Dependence on response magnitude. Vision Research. 15:1297–99, 1975.Google Scholar
Wasserman, G. S., Lo, J., and Easland, G. S.A modified multiplicative rule describes backward masking in a photoreceptor. Vision Research. 16: 785–88, 1976.Google Scholar
Wicke, J. D., Donchin, E., and Lindsley, D. B.Visual evoked potentials as a function of flash luminance and duration. Science. 146: 83–85, 1964.Google Scholar
Zacks, J. L.Temporal summation phenomena at threshold: Their relation to visual mechanisms. Science. 170: 197–99, 1970.Google Scholar
Changes in responses of X and Y type cat retinal ganglion cells produced by changes in background illumination. Paper read at the 1975 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, 1975.Google Scholar