Error data mirror the RT findings: opposite-response-set noise caused far more errors at the two closest spacings¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 1974 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Noise of the opposite response set both slowed responses and increased error frequency at the two closest spacings, and similar-feature noise of the opposite set had much the same effect. → Eriksen 1974

Evidence¶

Eriksen 1974¶

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03203267

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Error analysis presented in Table 3 (errors per noise condition, six Ss combined) across the three spacings. The article states these error data reflect essentially the same differences between noise conditions and spacing effects as the RT measures.

"It is readily apparent that noise of the opposite response set not only slowed Ss' responses but caused them to err much more frequently at the two closest spacings."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Heterogeneous noise letters with set-related features produce intermediate RT impairment, consistent with stimulus generalization at wider spacings — related
• Response-incompatible flanking noise letters impair target reaction time significantly more than response-compatible noise in a nonsearch task — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Target RT decreases as between-letter spacing increases, and the noise-condition effect is greatest at the closest spacing (Noise Condition by Spacing interaction) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Target-alone RT is approximately 30 msec faster in blocked no-noise trials than in trials intermixed with noise conditions, indicating a preparatory inhibitory set