Response durations for simple key presses are an easily available but heavily underused measure. Whereas response times dominate the toolbox of experimental psychologists and cognitive modelers alike, any study with standard key-press responses also allows for the measurement of such durations as the time from response onset to response offset. Moreover, response times and durations are decidedly independent, so response durations hold great promise as a means to uncover unique perspectives on cognitive processing. We showcase recent observations and corresponding theoretical frameworks to highlight that this inconspicuous measure deserves much more attention than it has attracted so far. Given that it comes at no extra cost for common experimental setups, any researcher is well advised to consider adding the measure of response duration to their empirical toolbox.
EvansN. J.WagenmakersE.-J. (2020). Evidence accumulation models: Current limitations and future directions. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16(2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.16.2.p073
5.
FittsP. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055392
6.
FoersterA.MoellerB.HuffmanG.KundeW.FringsC.PfisterR. (2022). The human cognitive system corrects traces of error commission on the fly. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(6), 1419–1432. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001139
7.
FoersterA.SteinhauserM.SchwarzK. A.KundeW.PfisterR. (2022). Error cancellation. Royal Society Open Science, 9(3), Article 210397. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210397
8.
GawronskiB.HahnA. (2019). Implicit measures: Procedures, use, and interpretation. In WebsterG. D.BlantonH.LaCroixJ. M. (Eds.), Measurement in social psychology (pp. 29–55). Routledge/Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452925-2
9.
GehringW. J.LiuY.OrrJ. M.CarpJ. (2012). The error-related negativity (ERN/Ne). In KappenmanE. S.LuckS. J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 232–292). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374148.013.0120
GirayM.UlrichR. (1993). Motor coactivation revealed by response force in divided and focused attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(6), 1278–1291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.19.6.1278
12.
GrosjeanM.MordkoffJ. T. (2001). Temporal stimulus-response compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 870–878. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.870
13.
HindsJ.BrownO.SmithL. G. E.PiwekL.EllisD. A.JoinsonA. N. (2022). Integrating insights about human movement patterns from digital data into psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211042324
14.
HirschG. M. (1936). Nuovi contributi al cosiddetto “tempo di ripresa” [New contributions concerning the so-called “restart time”]. Archivio Italiano di Psicologia, 14, 225–231.
HolmqvistK.NyströmM.AnderssonR.DewhurstR.HalszkaJ.van de WeijerJ. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford University Press.
KarlovichR. S.GrahamJ. T. (1968). Auditorily paced keytapping performance during synchronous, decreased, and delayed visual feedback. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26(3), 731–743. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1968.26.3.731
19.
KawamotoA. H.KelloC. T.JonesR.BameK. (1998). Initial phoneme versus whole-word criterion to initiate pronunciation: Evidence based on response latency and initial phoneme duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(4), 862–885. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.4.862
20.
KelloC. T.BeltzB. C.HoldenJ. G.van OrdenG. C. (2007). The emergent coordination of cognitive function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.4.551
21.
KlappS. T.RodriguezG. (1982). Programming time as a function of response duration: A replication of “dit-dah” without possible guessing artifacts. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1982.10735261
22.
KramerM. R.CoxP. H.YuA. B.KravitzD. J.MitroffS. R. (2021). Moving beyond the keypress: As technology advances, so should psychology response time measurements. Perception, 50(6), 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066211012356
23.
KundeW.StöckerC. (2002). A Simon effect for stimulus-response duration. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55(2), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980143000433
24.
LahyJ.-M. (1927). II. Le Facteur Psychologique dans la construction des machines à écrire [II. Human factors in the construction of typewriters]. L’année Psychologique, 28, 245–247. https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.1927.6416
NeszmélyiB.HorváthJ. (2018). Temporal constraints in the use of auditory action effects for motor optimization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(11), 1815–1829. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000571
PfisterR.BogonJ.FoersterA.KundeW.MoellerB. (2022). Binding and retrieval of response durations: Subtle evidence for episodic processing of continuous movement features. Journal of Cognition, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.212
29.
PonzoM. (1936). Signification des temps de reprise en psychologie générale et leur valeur d’utilisation psychotechnique [Significance of recovery times in general psychology and their value for psychotechnical use]. Le Travail Human, 4, 291–302.
30.
RatcliffR.SmithP. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111(2), 333–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.333
31.
RosenbaumD. A. (2005). The Cinderella of psychology: The neglect of motor control in the science of mental life and behavior. American Psychologist, 60(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.4.308
32.
SauterM.HanningN. M.LiesefeldH. R.MüllerH. J. (2021). Post-capture processes contribute to statistical learning of distractor locations in visual search. Cortex, 135, 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.11.016
33.
ShadmehrR.HuangH. J.AhmedA. A. (2016). A representation of effort in decision-making and motor control. Current Biology, 26, 1929–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.065
34.
UlrichR.RinkenauerG.MillerJ. (1998). Effects of stimulus duration and intensity on simple reaction time and response force. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 915–928. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.915
35.
VargaS.NeszmélyiB.HajdúN.HorváthJ. (2022). The emergence of action-effect-related motor adaptation amidst outcome unpredictability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48(7), 711–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001021
36.
VaughanJ.MattsonT.RosenbaumD. A. (1998). The regulation of contact in rhythmic tapping. In RosenbaumD. A.CollyerC. E. (Eds.), Timing of behavior: Neural, psychological, and computational perspectives (pp. 195–211). MIT Press.
37.
WirthR.FoersterA.KundeW.PfisterR. (2020). Design choices: Empirical recommendations for designing two-dimensional finger-tracking experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6), 2394–2416. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01409-0
38.
WoodworthR. S. (1938). Experimental psychology. Holt.
