ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2019
The bottleneck of the psychological refractory period effect involves timing of response initiation rather than response selection.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Multi-Tasking Ability Impacts Performance, Workload, Situation Awareness, Stress and Trust with Simulated Imperfect Automation.Human factors · 2026Article
- What Is the StartReact Effect?Acta physiologica (Oxford, England) · 2026Review
- An adjustable wave model for attention restoration.Frontiers in cognition · 2026Article
- Effect of Sequential Kicks on Programming Time and Movement Time in Taekwondo.Journal of human kinetics · 2025Article
- Always in (partner) action? Working in teams may improve simulated flight performance-but only in the apt cognitive control state.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- A mechanism underlying improved dual-task performance after practice: Reviewing evidence for the memory hypothesis.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Review
- Cue duration and trial spacing effects in contingency assessment in the streaming procedure with humans.Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition · 2024Article
- The influence of foreperiod duration on the preparation and control of sequential aiming movements.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2024Article
- Article
- A reservoir of foraging decision variables in the mouse brain.Nature neuroscience · 2023Article
- The role of action effects in motor sequence planning and execution: exploring the influence of temporal and spatial effect anticipation.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Efficacy of mechanisms of neuroplasticity after a stroke.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2022Article
- A Neuro-Computational Model for Discrete-Continuous Dual-Task Process.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2022Article
- Programming of action timing cannot be completed until immediately prior to initiation of the response to be controlled.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
29971643What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.