The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing.
Abstract
12 male college students responded to target letters H or S by squeezing dynamometers with the left and right hand. Targets could be surrounded by compatible (e.g., HHHHH) or incompatible noise (SSHSS) letters. Measures of the P300 component of the event-related brain potential and of correct and incorrect electromyographic (EMG) and squeeze activity were used to study stimulus evaluation and response-related processes. When incorrect squeeze activity was present, execution of the correct response was prolonged, indicating a process of response competition. This process occurred more often under incompatible noise conditions, which were also associated with a delayed P300. Thus, the noise/compatability manipulation influenced both stimulus evaluation and response competition processes. In contrast, a warning tone that preceded array presentation on half the trials increased response speed without influencing evaluation time. Data suggest that the latency and accuracy of overt behavioral responses are a function of (a) a response activation process controlled by an evaluation process that accumulates evidence gradually, (b) a response priming process that is independent of stimulus evaluation, and (c) a response competition process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review
Folstein, J. R., & Van Petten, C. (2008) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00602.x · Cited by 2,567
Falkenstein, M., Hohnsbein, J., Hoormann, J., & Blanke, L. (1991) · Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1016/0013-4694(91)90062-9 · Cited by 1,706
Modern mind-brain reading: Psychophysiology, physiology, and cognition
Coles, M. G. H. (1989) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1989.tb01916.x · Cited by 792
Self-citationDissociable contributions of prefrontal and parietal cortices to response selection
Bunge, S. A., Hazeltine, E., Scanlon, M. D., Rosen, A. C., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1252 · Cited by 468
Executive control in the Simon effect: an electromyographic and distributional analysis
Burle, B., Possamaï, C.-A., Vidal, F., Bonnet, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2002) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0105-6 · Cited by 249
Metadata
- Authors
- Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
- Published
- 1985
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 529-553
- ISSN
- 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1277
- OpenAlex
- W4322703283
- Cited by
- 633
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.