no break break location (ms)

FIGURE 9.5 Results from Fortin and Massé's (2000) experiment 4. Mean produced intervals, not including breaks (± SE), as a function of break location in trials with and without breaks, in the cued and uncued conditions.

Massé, 2000, experiment 4). In that experiment, trials with and without breaks were mixed, but there were two types of no-break trials, cued and uncued. In cued trials, a short message, presented on a computer screen at the start of the trial, forewarned participants of the break absence. Participants were therefore not expecting a break in these cued trials in principle, whereas a break was expected in the other half of the no-break trials where no cue was presented. A strong prediction of the expectancy interpretation was that production in identical trial conditions without breaks should differ depending on a break being uncued or cued, thus expected or not during the interval production. Intervals should be longer in uncued trials, where participants are expecting a break, than in cued trials, where participants, being forewarned of the break absence, are not expecting a break. As shown in Figure 9.5, this pattern of results was actually observed: in trials with no breaks, productions were significantly longer in uncued trials than in cued trials, that is, when participants were expecting a break than when no break was expected. Overall, longest productions were obtained in uncued trials with no breaks.

0 0

Post a comment