Latency of reaction to onset of a visual display was subtracted from latency of reaction to offset. Persistence was defined as difference between the two latency values. Persistence was inversely related to stimulus duration and was comparable for monoptic presentation and for presentation of the first half of the stimulus duration to one eye and the second half to the other. A power function described the relation between persistence and stimulus duration. The possible effects of central intermittency on this type of reaction time measure are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AverbachM.CoriellA. S. (1961). Short-term memory in vision. Bell System Technical Journal40, 309–28.
2.
BertelsonP. (1967). Central intermittency twenty years later. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology18, 153–63.
3.
BorgerR. (1963). The refractory period and serial choice reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology15, 1–12.
4.
EfronR. (1970). Effects of stimulus duration on perceptual onset and offset latencies. Perception and Psychophysics8, 231–4.
5.
HaberR. N.StandingL. G. (1969a). Direct measures of short-term visual storage. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology21, 43–56.
6.
HaberR. N.StandingL. G. (1969b). Direct estimates of apparent duration of a flash followed by visual noise. Visual persistence and the processing of visual stimulationHaberR. N.London Unpublished paper cited in 1969. Paper presented at the International Congress of Psychology Convention.
7.
JenkinsT. N. (1926). Facilitation and inhibition. Archives of Psychology No. 86.
8.
KeeleS. W.ChaseW. G. (1967). Short-term visual storage. Perception and Psychophysics2, 383–6.
