Literature DB >> 2377722

VEP latency and some properties of simple motor reaction-time distribution.

P Jaśkowski1, A Pruszewicz, P Swidzinski.   

Abstract

The median of simple motor reaction (RT) to a flash parallels the latencies of visually evoked potential (VEP) deflections if flash intensity is varied. However, mean and median reaction times are not equal because of the skewness of RT distribution. It therefore seemed plausible that the mean reaction time--intensity relationship would be steeper than that for VEP latency. Such divergence would account for the intensity-dependent motor component of RT revealed by other psychophysical studies. The latencies of VEP deflections were measured as a function of intensity and the results were compared with mean and median RTs. The difference between mean and median RT is constant and independent of flash intensity. Moreover, both values are parallel to VEP latency. The general pattern of results remains the same after a change in the distribution from which the foreperiod is sampled.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2377722     DOI: 10.1007/bf00867208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  10 in total

1.  Retinal mechanisms of visual latency.

Authors:  R J Mansfield; J G Daugman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  LATENCY MODELS FOR REACTION TIME DISTRIBUTIONS.

Authors:  D H TAYLOR
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  1965-06       Impact factor: 2.500

3.  Reaction times to different spatial frequencies as a function of detectability.

Authors:  K Gish; G L Shulman; J B Sheehy; H W Leibowitz
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Input-output relations in simple reaction time experiments.

Authors:  A Angel
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol       Date:  1973-05       Impact factor: 2.143

5.  Contributions of the primary chromatic mechanisms to the generation of visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  J Krauskopf
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1973-12       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  A warning about median reaction time.

Authors:  J Miller
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  A double-response paradigm to study stimulus intensity effects upon the motor system in simple reaction time experiments.

Authors:  R Ulrich; K H Stapf
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1984-12

8.  Effects of photopic annulus luminance level on reaction time and on the latency of evoked cortical potential responses to target flashes.

Authors:  A J Wilson; A Lit
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1981-12

9.  Latency of the neuromagnetic response of the human visual cortex.

Authors:  S J Williamson; L Kaufman; D Brénner
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  The functional relation of visual evoked response and reaction time to stimulus intensity.

Authors:  H G Vaughan; L D Costa; L Gilden
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1966-12       Impact factor: 1.886

  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  The relationship between latency of auditory evoked potentials, simple reaction time, and stimulus intensity.

Authors:  P Jaskowski; K Rybarczyk; F Jaroszyk
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  1994

2.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the visual system. I. The psychophysics of visual suppression.

Authors:  Thomas Kammer; Klaas Puls; Hans Strasburger; N Jeremy Hill; Felix A Wichmann
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Audio-motor but not visuo-motor temporal recalibration speeds up sensory processing.

Authors:  Yoshimori Sugano; Mirjam Keetels; Jean Vroomen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.