Cited by 44Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesEmotion and Mood RecognitionAesthetic Perception and Analysis

Reaction time normative data for the IAPS as a function of display time, gender, and picture content

Calvo, Manuel G., Avero, Pedro·2009·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

This study aimed to extend the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2005) norms by obtaining reaction time (RT) normative data for 308 selected photographs. Pictures were presented one at a time for 33, 100, or 250 msec, or under free-time display, to 96 women and 48 men. The participants' task involved assessing the emotional valence of each picture and responding as quickly as possible as to whether it was unpleasant, neutral, or pleasant. RTs provided an index of processing efficiency. The manipulation of display time served to estimate the time course in the valence identification of each picture. Some categories of depicted scenes (e.g., erotica and mutilations) were classified more consistently and efficiently than were others as pleasant or unpleasant. There were minimal differences between men and women. Overall, the present data provide researchers investigating cognition/emotion relationships with an objective criterion to select pictorial stimuli on the basis of RTs. Data for all pictures may be downloaded from brm.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/brm.41.1.184

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • SAM reaction time to slides from the International Affective Picture System is a valid measure of processing efficiency for assessing one's own response to slide content.

    “SAM reaction time to slides from the International Affective Picture System has been previously found to be a valid measure of “processing efficiency” for assessing one’s own response to slide content (63).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Calvo, M. G., & Avero, P.
Affiliations
Universidad de La Laguna (ES)
Corresponding author
Calvo, Manuel G.
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2009-02
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
184-191
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W1966387925
Cited by
44
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
Keywords
International Affective Picture System, display time, emotional valence, gender differences, processing efficiency, stimulus selection
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Semantics, Sex Factors, Visual Perception, Young Adult

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