Responses (i.e. “seen” or “not seen”) to a repeated stimulus of constant intensity are shown to be grouped in runs of the same response. It is suggested that there are only two possible explanations of this non-randomness: spontaneous fluctuations of threshold and the direct influence of a response on succeeding responses. Experiments designed to distinguish between these two explanations have shown that the latter is the more important and that a response affects directly, though with diminishing intensity, the three immediately following responses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GuilfordJ. P. (1927). “Fluctuations of attention” with weak visual stimuli. Amer. J. Psychol.38, 534–583.
2.
HechtS.ShlaerS.PirenneM. H. (1942). Energy, quanta and vision. J. gen. Physiol.25, 819–840.
3.
OldfieldR. C. (1955). Apparent fluctuations of a sensory threshold. Quart. J. exp. Psychol.7, 101–115.
4.
PatnaikP. B. (1949). The non-central x2- and F-distributions and their applications. Biometrika36, 202–232.
5.
VerplankW. S.Response mechanisms of the visual threshold: a methodological study October 15th 1952 Office of Naval ResearchNavy, US195210 Status report 2, Project NR 140–015.
6.
VerplankW. S.CollierG. H.CottonJ. W. (1952). Non-independence of successive responses in measurements of the visual threshold. J. exp. Psychol.44, 273–282.
7.
WertheimerM. (1953). An investigation of the “randomness” of threshold measurements. J. exp. Psychol.45, 294–303.