Sequential effects are ubiquitous in decision-making, but no more than in the absolute identification task where participants must identify stimuli from a set of items that vary on a single dimension. A number of competing explanations for these sequential effects have been proposed, and recently Matthews and Stewart [(2009a). The effect of inter-stimulus interval on sequential effects in absolute identification. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2014–2029] showed that manipulations of the time between decisions is useful in discriminating between these accounts. We use a Bayesian hierarchical regression model to show that inter-trial interval has an influence on behaviour when it varies across different blocks of trials, but not when it varies from trial to trial. We discuss the implications of both our and Matthews and Stewart's results on the effect of inter-trial interval for theories of sequential effects.
BrownS. D., & HeathcoteA. J. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice reaction time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153–178.
2.
BrownS. D., MarleyA., DonkinC., & HeathcoteA. J. (2008). An integrated model of choices and response times in absolute identification. Psychological Review, 115, 396–425.
3.
DonkinC., BrownS., & HeathcoteA. J. (2011). Drawing conclusions from response time models: A tutorial using the linear ballistic accumulator model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55, 140–151.
4.
GriffithsT., KempC., & TenenbaumJ. (2008). Bayesian models of cognition. In SunR. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 59–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
HollandM. K., & LockheadG. R. (1968). Sequential effects in absolute judgments of loudness. Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 409–414.
6.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
JordanM. I. (2004). Graphical models. Statistical Science, 19, 140–155.
8.
KingJ. A., DonkinC., KorbF. M., & EgnerT. (2012). Model-based analysis of context-specific cognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 358. doi: 10.3389/fp-syg.2012.00358
9.
LacoutureY., & MarleyA. (1995). A mapping model of bow effects in absolute identification. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 383–395.
10.
LeeM. D. (2008). Three case studies in the Bayesian analysis of cognitive models. Psy- chonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1–15.
11.
LeeM. D., & WagenmakersE.-J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
LuceR. D. (1986). Response times. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
MalmbergK., & AnnisJ. (2012). On the relationship between memory and perception: Sequential dependencies in recognition memory testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 233–259.
14.
MarleyA. A. J., & CookV. T. (1984). A fixed rehearsal capacity interpretation of limits on absolute identification performance. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 136–151.
15.
MatthewsW., & StewartN. (2009a). The effect of inter-stimulus interval on sequential effects in absolute identification. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2014–2029.
16.
MatthewsW., & StewartN. (2009b). Psychophysics and the judgment of price: Judging complex objects on a non-physical dimension elicits sequential effects like those in perceptual tasks. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 64–81.
17.
MillerG. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for information processing. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
18.
MoriS., & WardL. M. (1995). Pure feedback effects in absolute identification. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1065–1079.
19.
PollackI. (1952). The information of elementary auditory displays. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 745–749.
20.
RatcliffR., & RouderJ. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347–356.
21.
ShiffrinR. M., LeeM. D., KimW., & WagenmakersE.-J. (2008). A survey of model evaluation approaches with a tutorial on hierarchical Bayesian methods. Cognitive Science, 32, 1248–1284.
22.
StewartN., BrownG. D. A., & ChaterN. (2005). Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review, 112, 881–911.
23.
TriesmanM., & WilliamsT. C. (1984). A theory of criterion setting with an application to sequential dependencies. Psychological Review, 91, 68–111.
24.
Van RavenzwaaijD., MulderM., TuerlinckxF., & WagenmakersE. J. (2012). Do the dynamics of prior information depend on task context? An analysis of optimal performance and an empirical test. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 132. doi: 10.3389/fp-syg.2012.00132
25.
VivianiP. (1979). A diffusion model for discrimination of temporal numerosity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 19, 108–136.
26.
WagenmakersE.-J., LodewyckxT., KuriyalH., & GrasmanR. (2010). Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: A tutorial on the Savage-Dickey procedure. Cognitive Psychology, 60, 158–189.
27.
WardL. M., & LockheadG. R. (1970). Sequential effect and memory in category judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84, 27–34.
28.
WardL. M., & LockheadG. R. (1971). Response system processes in absolute judgment. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 73–78.
29.
WhiteC. N., MumfordJ. A., & PoldrackR. A. (2012). Perceptual criteria in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 16716–16724.
30.
ZotovV., JonesM., & MewhortD. J. K. (2011). Contrast and assimilation in categorization and exemplar production. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 621–639.
