Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29971643›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2019

The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection.

Stuart T Klapp, Dana Maslovat, Richard J Jagacinski

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. What Is the StartReact Effect?Acta physiologica (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Cue duration and trial spacing effects in contingency assessment in the streaming procedure with humans.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Efficacy of mechanisms of neuroplasticity after a stroke.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  13. A Neuro-Computational Model for Discrete-Continuous Dual-Task Process.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stuart T KlappDepartment of Psychology, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA. Stuart.Klapp@csueastbay.edu.
Dana MaslovatSchool of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Richard J JagacinskiDepartment of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Psychological Refractory Period (PRP) effect is a delay in responding that is assumed to be caused by a bottleneck that prevents preparation of a second action until preparation of the previous action has been completed. The bottleneck is usually attributed to a limitation that prevents concurrent selection of two responses. However, evidence reviewed here challenges this selection interpretation. We propose instead that the bottleneck is due to a process that programs the timing of response initiation, and which must be completed immediately prior to responding. This hypothesis is based on two conclusions from recent developments in research, which includes findings from paradigms that do not involve the PRP. The first conclusion is from studies involving the startle response and single-task simple (precued) reaction time; these studies indicate that programming the timing of response onsets is needed to enable response initiation. This programing takes longer for more complicated timing, and must be delayed until just prior to responding. The second conclusion is from studies of concurrent rhythmic movements demonstrating that the representation of timing is restricted to one temporal frame unless very rapid performance enables parallel timing. These findings reveal limitations that can combine to produce the PRP bottleneck. This interpretation clarifies otherwise puzzling aspects of the PRP effect and indicates that a fundamental restriction concerning response timing may underlie both limitations and the PRP effect that they produce. This restriction might arise because timing is controlled by subcortical neural structures with limited working memory.

Indexed as

AttentionHumansPsychomotor PerformanceReflex, StartleRefractory Period, PsychologicalDivided attentionMultitaskingPsychological Refractory PeriodResponse initiationResponse timing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.