Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
13:00
Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
Published on: January 23, 2017
9.2K
What do fast response times tell us about attentional control?
Andrew B Leber1, Jennifer R Lechak, Sarah M Tower-Richardi
1Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Journal of Vision
|October 18, 2013
Summary
Researchers analyzing response time distributions to study attention capture face a challenge. Trial difficulty, not just internal control, influences results, potentially distorting findings on attentional control.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Psychology
- Neuroscience
- Human-Computer Interaction
Background:
- Attention capture research investigates stimulus-driven vs. goal-driven control.
- Cumulative response time (RT) distributions are increasingly used to model attention capture.
- Current models often assume RT variability reflects internal control state fluctuations.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critique the assumption that RT distribution variability solely reflects internal control states.
- To investigate the impact of incidental stimulus factors on RT distributions.
- To re-evaluate the interpretation of data from cumulative RT distribution analyses in attention research.
Main Methods:
- Empirical demonstration of stimulus factor influence on RT distributions.
- Analysis of cumulative response time distributions.
- Experimental manipulation of trial difficulty and stimulus properties.
Main Results:
- Incidental stimulus factors significantly distort cumulative RT distributions.
- Faster RT distribution segments are overrepresented by easy trials.
- Slower RT distribution segments are overrepresented by difficult trials, independent of internal control.
Conclusions:
- The assumption that RT variability primarily reflects internal control state is problematic.
- Incidental stimulus factors confound the interpretation of attention capture data.
- Caution is advised when analyzing cumulative RT distributions without accounting for trial difficulty.
