The DOI matches its Crossref record.
One hundred fifty years after Donders: Insights from unpublished data, a replication, and modeling of his reaction times
Abstract
Mental processes take a measurable amount of time, which was discovered by Donders one hundred fifty years ago. He reports process durations in his classic study with the a-, b-, and c-methods (i.e., simple, choice, go/no-go) using a speech repetition task. His reaction time pattern was a < c < b. He reasoned that the c - a difference gives the discrimination duration, and the b - c difference the choice duration. A few years later, Wundt criticized the c-method by arguing that it does involve a choice (i.e., whether or not to respond, which is an act of executive control), whereas Donders maintained that it may not involve full discrimination. The substance of this historical controversy relates closely to modern issues in the study of reaction times. Here, I show that an analysis of unpublished data from a handwritten laboratory notebook of Donders reveals no b - c difference for his students, supporting Wundt's concern. Moreover, a replication of Donders' study using his original stimulus lists yielded only a small b - c difference for myself, supporting Wundt. A computer simulation using a modern model of speech repetition indicates that the difference between Donders and his students may plausibly result from choice in the c-method. To conclude, unpublished data, a replication, and modern modeling resolve a 150-year-old issue, stressing the importance of examining individual differences and executive control in performance.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Utterance onset latencies as short as 200 ms after the offset of a verbal cue can only be obtained for utterances that are fully planned and merely have to be launched.
“In fact, utterance onset latencies as short as 200 ms after the offset of a verbal cue can only be obtained for utterances that are fully planned and merely have to be launched.”
From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Roelofs, 2018
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Bender, 2016, On the relationship between response selection and response inhibition: An individual differences approach, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 2420, 10.3758/s13414-016-1158-8 · DOI
- Cattell, 1886, The time taken up by cerebral operations, part 3, Mind, 11, 377, 10.1093/mind/os-XI.43.377 · DOI
- Cumming, 2014, The new statistics: Why and how, Psychological Science, 25, 7, 10.1177/0956797613504966 · DOI · Paper page
- Dell, 1997, Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers, Psychological Review, 104, 801, 10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.801 · DOI
- Diamond, 2013, Executive functions, Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135, 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 · DOI · Paper page
- Donders, 1849, Nederlandsch Lancet. Tijdschrift voor de Geneeskundigen Wetenschappen in Haren Geheelen Omvang, 5, 521
- Donders, 1864, Zur Klangfarbe der Vocale [on the timbre of vowels], Annals of Physical Chemistry, 123, 527, 10.1002/andp.18641991110 · DOI
- Donders, 1969, On the speed of mental processes, Acta Psychologica, 30, 412, 10.1016/0001-6918(69)90065-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Geschwind, 1970, The organization of language and the brain, Science, 170, 940, 10.1126/science.170.3961.940 · DOI
- Gomez, 2007, A model of the go/no-go task, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 389, 10.1037/0096-3445.136.3.389 · DOI
- Jongman, 2015, Sustained attention in language production: An individual differences investigation, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 710, 10.1080/17470218.2014.964736 · DOI
- Levelt, 1999, A theory of lexical access in speech production, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1, 10.1017/S0140525X99001776 · DOI
- Meyer, 1988, Modern mental chronometry, Biological Psychology, 26, 3, 10.1016/0301-0511(88)90013-0 · DOI
- Pols, 1973, Frequency analysis of Dutch vowels from 50 male speakers, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 53, 1093, 10.1121/1.1913429 · DOI
- Posner, 2005, Timing the brain: Mental chronometry as a tool in neuroscience, PLoS Biology, 3, e51, 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030051 · DOI
- Raichle, 1998, Behind the scenes of functional brain imaging: A historical and physiological perspective, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95, 765, 10.1073/pnas.95.3.765 · DOI · Paper page
- Ratcliff, 2018, Modeling individual differences in the go/no-go task with a diffusion model, Decision, 5, 42, 10.1037/dec0000065 · DOI
- Roelofs, 1997, The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production, Cognition, 64, 249, 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00027-9 · DOI
- Roelofs, 2014, A dorsal-pathway account of aphasic language production: The WEAVER++/ARC model, Cortex, 59, 33, 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.07.001 · DOI
- Schmidgen, 2005, The Donders machine: Matter, signs, and time in a physiological experiment, ca. 1865, Configurations, 13, 211, 10.1353/con.2007.0018 · DOI
- Shao, 2012, Sources of individual differences in the speed of naming objects and actions: The contribution of executive control, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1927, 10.1080/17470218.2012.670252 · DOI
- Sikora, 2016, Executive control in spoken noun-phrase production: Contributions of updating, inhibiting, and shifting, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1719, 10.1080/17470218.2015.1093007 · DOI
- Sternberg, 1969, The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method, Acta Psychologica, 30, 276, 10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9 · DOI · Paper page
- Ulrich, 1999, Donders's assumption of pure insertion: An evaluation on the basis of response dynamics, Acta Psychologica, 102, 43, 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00019-0 · DOI
- Vidal, 2011, An ERP study of cognitive architecture and the insertion of mental processes: Donders revisited, Psychophysiology, 48, 1242, 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01186.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Meyer, A. S. (2023) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.268 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Roelofs, A.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Roelofs, Ardi
- ORCID
- Roelofs, Ardi
- Venue
- Acta Psychologica
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 191
- Pages
- 228-233
- ISSN
- 0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2896807596
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 5.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- Donders, reaction time, Wilhelm Wundt, executive function, individual differences, historical controversy
- MeSH terms
- Data Analysis, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Computer Simulation, Humans, Mental Processes, Problem Solving, Reaction Time, Speech, Students, Executive Function
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review