Do variable signal luminances and confounded stimuli contribute to slowing RT and cross-study heterogeneity? A response to Parker (2014)

Typeset version

 

TY  - JOUR
  - Woodley, M. A., te Nijenhuis, J., ; Murphy, R
  - 2015
  - January
  - Intelligence
  - Do variable signal luminances and confounded stimuli contribute to slowing RT and cross-study heterogeneity? A response to Parker (2014)
  - Published
  - ()
  - 49
  - 23
  - 24
  - Parker (2014) argues that contra Woodley, te Nijenhuis, and Murphy (2013), potential secular slowing of simple visual reaction time does not evidence decreasing intelligence, as there are other factors that covary with simple RT performance, not accounted for. These include variable cross-study signal luminance and conflated audio and visual signals. Scrutiny of these two proposed sources suggests that they are unlikely to contribute to either the heterogeneity or the direction of the apparent slowing trend. A sensitivity analysis furthermore indicates that Galton's sample could have been considerably slower than believed (213.85 ms)without the secular trend across the six US and UK samples examined in Woodley, te Nijenhuis, and Murphy (2014) becoming non-significant.
DA  - 2015/01
ER  - 
@article{V268423651,
   = {Woodley, M. A., te Nijenhuis, J.,  and  Murphy, R},
   = {2015},
   = {January},
   = {Intelligence},
   = {Do variable signal luminances and confounded stimuli contribute to slowing RT and cross-study heterogeneity? A response to Parker (2014)},
   = {Published},
   = {()},
   = {49},
  pages = {23--24},
   = {{Parker (2014) argues that contra Woodley, te Nijenhuis, and Murphy (2013), potential secular slowing of simple visual reaction time does not evidence decreasing intelligence, as there are other factors that covary with simple RT performance, not accounted for. These include variable cross-study signal luminance and conflated audio and visual signals. Scrutiny of these two proposed sources suggests that they are unlikely to contribute to either the heterogeneity or the direction of the apparent slowing trend. A sensitivity analysis furthermore indicates that Galton's sample could have been considerably slower than believed (213.85 ms)without the secular trend across the six US and UK samples examined in Woodley, te Nijenhuis, and Murphy (2014) becoming non-significant.}},
  source = {IRIS}
}
AUTHORSWoodley, M. A., te Nijenhuis, J., ; Murphy, R
YEAR2015
MONTHJanuary
JOURNAL_CODEIntelligence
TITLEDo variable signal luminances and confounded stimuli contribute to slowing RT and cross-study heterogeneity? A response to Parker (2014)
STATUSPublished
TIMES_CITED()
SEARCH_KEYWORD
VOLUME49
ISSUE
START_PAGE23
END_PAGE24
ABSTRACTParker (2014) argues that contra Woodley, te Nijenhuis, and Murphy (2013), potential secular slowing of simple visual reaction time does not evidence decreasing intelligence, as there are other factors that covary with simple RT performance, not accounted for. These include variable cross-study signal luminance and conflated audio and visual signals. Scrutiny of these two proposed sources suggests that they are unlikely to contribute to either the heterogeneity or the direction of the apparent slowing trend. A sensitivity analysis furthermore indicates that Galton's sample could have been considerably slower than believed (213.85 ms)without the secular trend across the six US and UK samples examined in Woodley, te Nijenhuis, and Murphy (2014) becoming non-significant.
PUBLISHER_LOCATION
ISBN_ISSN
EDITION
URL
DOI_LINK
FUNDING_BODY
GRANT_DETAILS