% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Langner:849992,
      author       = {Langner, Robert and Steinborn, Michael B. and Eickhoff,
                      Simon and Huestegge, Lynn},
      title        = {{W}hen specific action biases meet nonspecific preparation:
                      {E}vent repetition modulates the variable-foreperiod
                      effect.},
      journal      = {Journal of experimental psychology / Human perception and
                      performance},
      volume       = {},
      issn         = {0096-1523},
      address      = {[Washington]},
      publisher    = {American Psychological Association},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2018-04080},
      pages        = {No Pagination Specified},
      year         = {2018},
      note         = {This work was supported by the Deutsche
                      Forschungsgemeinschaft (LA 3071/3-1 to R.L. $\&$ S.B.E.) and
                      the European Union Seventh Framework Programme
                      (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 7202070 (HBP SGA1
                      to S.B.E.).},
      abstract     = {Preparing for the moment of action speeds up reaction time
                      (RT) performance even if the particular response is unknown
                      beforehand. When the preparatory interval, or foreperiod
                      (FP), varies unpredictably between trials, responses usually
                      become faster with increasing FP length. This variable-FP
                      effect has been demonstrated to partly originate from
                      trial-to-trial sequential effects of FP length, which are
                      asymmetric as they occur mainly in short-FP but not in
                      long-FP trials. In two experiments, we examined whether and
                      how event-specific biases arising from previous target
                      processing and responding affect both variable-FP and
                      sequential FP effects. We found that trial-to-trial
                      repetitions (vs. alternations) of imperative events produced
                      response time benefits in short-FP but not in long-FP
                      trials, almost eliminating the variable-FP effect, while the
                      sequential FP effect remained intact. This asymmetric
                      contribution to speeded performance in variable-FP settings
                      suggests that sequential event-specific biases may be highly
                      transient and not necessarily an integral part of the mental
                      representations that guide time-based expectancy, or may be
                      overridden by high levels of nonspecific preparation in
                      long-FP trials. In conclusion, temporal preparation appears
                      to be a nonspecific mechanism (i.e., generally not bound to
                      particular event features) for prioritizing certain
                      positions on the mental time line, on which event-specific
                      short-term biases are superimposed if time-based preparation
                      is weak. (PsycINFO Database Record.},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      ddc          = {150},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {574 - Theory, modelling and simulation (POF3-574) / HBP
                      SGA1 - Human Brain Project Specific Grant Agreement 1
                      (720270)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-574 / G:(EU-Grant)720270},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:29975096},
      UT           = {WOS:000442590900001},
      doi          = {10.1037/xhp0000561},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/849992},
}