On the Misguided Use of Reaction-Time Differences: A Reply to Proctor and Rao (1982)

Perception & Psychophysics
doi 10.3758/bf03204201
Full Text
Abstract

Available in full text

Date
Authors
Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Related search

Effects of Affective Valence on a Mixed Spatial Correspondence Task: A Reply to Proctor (2013).

Psychology and Neuroscience
NeurosciencePhysiological PsychologyNeuropsychology
2014English

Misguided Inferences? The Use of Expressio Unius to Interpret Tax Law

Alberta Law Review
2014English

A Free, Easy-To-Use, Computer-Based Simple and Four-Choice Reaction Time Programme: The Deary-Liewald Reaction Time Task

Behavior Research Methods
DevelopmentalArtsPsychologyEducational PsychologyCognitive PsychologyHumanitiesExperimental
2010English

A Misguided Attack on Evolution

Nature
Multidisciplinary
2010English

Ear Differences in Reaction Time to Onsets and Offsets of Monaurally Presented Signals

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America
AcousticsUltrasonicsArtsHumanities
1976English

Commentary: Sex Difference Differences? A Reply to Constantino

Molecular Autism
PsychiatryMental HealthDevelopmental NeuroscienceDevelopmental BiologyMolecular Biology
2016English

Effects of Compression on the Use of Onset Time Differences to Detect One Tone in the Presence of Another

2013English

Age-Related Differences in Corticospinal Excitability During a Choice Reaction Time Task

AGE
2012English

The Effect of Posture on Reaction Time With Respect to Age and Gender

Rigakuryoho Kagaku
Physical TherapySports TherapyRehabilitation
2011English

Amanote Research

Note-taking for researchers

Follow Amanote

© 2024 Amaplex Software S.P.R.L. All rights reserved.

Privacy PolicyRefund Policy