Reaction Time as an Index of Sensory Function

  • David B. Moody


It is probably quite apparent from the contents of this book that there are many techniques which can be used to determine either the minimum levels of stimulation or the minimum difference in levels of stimulation necessary to produce behavioral consequences. These techniques all produce a measure of sensitivity conventionally called the threshold; they all determine something about the fineness with which an organism can discriminate certain elements of his environment from other similar elements.


Sensory Function Catch Trial Median Latency Anticipatory Response Test Tone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boakes, R. A. 1969. The bisection of a brightness interval by pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 12:201–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cattell, J. M. 1947. The time of perception as a measure of differences in intensity. In James McKeen Cattell: Man of Science, 1860–1944, Lancaster, Pa., Science Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chocholle, R. 1940. Variation des temps de réaction auditifs en fonction de l’intensité à diverses fréquences. Année Psychol., 41:65–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, H., C. T. Morgan, J. E. Hawkins, R. Galambos, and F. W. Smith. 1950. Temporary deafness following exposure to loud tones and noise. Acta. Otolaryng. (Stockholm), Supp. 88.Google Scholar
  5. Fletcher, H., and W. A. Munson. 1933. Loudness, its definition, measurement, and calculation. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 5:82–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fowler, E. P. 1963. Loudness recruitment: definition and clarification. Arch. Otolaryng. (Chicago), 78:748–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graham, C. H., and L. A. Riggs. 1935. The visibility curve of the white rat as determined by the electrical retinal response to lights of different wavelengths. J. Gen. Psychol., 12:279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanes, R. M. 1949. The construction of subjective brightness scales from fractionation data: a validation. J. Exp. Psychol., 39:719–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Honig, W. K., and J. Shaw. 1962. The bisection of spectral intervals by pigeons: a first attempt. Paper read at meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  10. Jerger, J. 1962. Hearing tests in otologic diagnosis. Asha, 4:139–145.Google Scholar
  11. Laties, V. G., B. Weiss, R. L. Clark, and M. D. Reynolds. 1965. Overt “mediating” behavior during temporally spaced responding. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 8:107–116.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller, J. M., M. Glickstein, and W. C. Stebbins. 1966. Reduction of response latency in monkeys by a procedure of differential reinforcement. Psychon. Sci., 5:177–178.Google Scholar
  13. Moody, D. B. 1969. Equal brightness functions for supra-threshold stimuli in the pigmented rat: a behavioral determination. Vis. Res., 9:1381–1389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Muntz, W. R. A. 1967. A behavioral study of photopic and scotopic vision in the hooded rat. Vis. Res., 7:371–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pollack, J. D. 1968. Reaction time to different wavelengths at various luminances. Percept. Psychophys., 3:17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Riggs, L. A. 1965. Light as a stimulus for vision. In Graham, C. H., ed. Vision and Visual Perception, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
  17. Saslow, C. A. 1968. Operant control of response latency in monkeys: evidence for a central explanation. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 11:89–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Skinner, B. F. 1946. Differential reinforcement with respect to time. Amer. Psychol., 1:274–275(Abstr.).Google Scholar
  19. Snodgrass, J. G., R. D. Luce, and E. Galanter. 1967. Some experiments on simple and choice reaction time. J. Exp. Psychol., 75:1–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stebbins, W. C. 1962. Response latency as a function of amount of reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 5:305–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stebbins, W. C. 1966. Auditory reaction time and the derivation of equal loudness contours for the monkey. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 9:135–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stebbins, W. C. and R. N. Lanson. 1961. A technique for measuring the latency of a discriminative operant. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 4:149–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stebbins, W. C. and R. N. Lanson. 1962. Response latency as a function of reinforcement schedule. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 5:299–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Steinman, A. R. 1944. Reaction time to change compared to other psychophysical methods. Arch. Psychol. N.Y., Monogr. #292.Google Scholar
  25. Stevens, S. S. 1936. A scale for the measurement of a psychological magnitude: loudness. Psychol. Rev., 43:405–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stevens, S. S. and J. Volkmann. 1940. The relation of pitch to frequency: a revised scale. Amer. J. Psychol., 54:315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wald, G. 1945. Human vision and the spectrum. Science, 101:653–658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weaver, E. G. 1949. Theory of Hearing, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 307.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Moody
    • 1
  1. 1.Kresge Hearing Research InstituteUniversity of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations