The present paper organizes and evaluates selected portions of the time perception literature. Emphasis is on data and theory concerned primarily with judgments of brie/temporal intervals. Research concerning the psychophysical law for time, Weber's law, the time-order error, and the role of nontemporal information is evaluated. This is followed by a consideration of current, quantitatively oriented, theoretical formulations for time perception.Five years ago, Allan and Kristofferson (1974a) could write: "There are few quantitative theories of duration discrimination and few established empirical phenomena to guide theorizing" (p. 26). Since that time, there has been a dramatic change. Many articles on the discrimination of brief temporal intervals, and several new quantitative models, have appeared in a period of a few years. The last major general review and evaluation of the literature concerned primarily with the perception of brief temporal intervals was published almost 30 years ago by Woodrow (1951). Recent reviews by Doob (1971), Fraisse (1963), and Peppel (1978) emphasize the perception of relatively long temporal intervals. The present paper organizes and evaluates those portions of the more recent time perception literature concerned primarily with judgments of brief temporal intervals, generally less than 10 sec, by normal human adults. First, the more common methods used are described. Second{ the research relevant to four central issues is evaluated. Finally, current and quantitatively oriented theoretical formulations for time perception are considered.Even within these limits, no attempt at covering all the relevant literature was made; the literature considered is best described as representative rather than comprehensive. (A fairly comprehensive recent bibliography of the time perception literature is Zelkind and Sprug, 1974.) METHODOLOGYPast attempts to impose order on the methodology of time perception (e.g., Bindra & Waksberg, 1956;Clausen, 1950;Woodrow, 1951) the experimenter (E) presents a temporal interval and the subject (S) gives a verbal estimate of its duration in clock time. In production, E states the duration of the interval in clock time and S produces that interval. In reproduction, E presents the temporal interval and S reproduces it. In the method of comparison, E presents two temporal intervals in succession and S makes a judgment of relative duration.Many studies asked (1) which method produced judgments of greatest accuracy (least difference from the presented temporal interval) and consistency (least intra-and intersubject variability), and (2) whether there were significant correlations among the basic methods (e.g

Varied measures of contingency have appeared in the psychological judgment literature concerned with binary variables. These measures are examined, and the inappropriateness of some are noted. As well, it is argued that accurate judgments about related variables should not be used to infer that the judgments are based on the appropriate information.A number of studies in the psychological literature have been concerned with judgments of contingency or correlation between two binary variables (Allan & Jenkins, in press;Gray, 1976;Green, Jurd, & Seggie, 1979;Inhelder & Piaget, 1958;Seggie, 1975;Seggie & Endersby, 1972;Smedslund, 1963;. One purpose of the present note is to evaluate the various measures of contingency that have been used in these studies. A second purpose is to argue that accurate judgments about two variables that are related should not be used to infer that the judgments are based on the appropriate information. MEASUREMENT OF CONTINGENCY OR CORRELATIONConsider the 2by 2 matrix in Figure

No abstract

The study of the mechanism that detects the contingency between events, in both humans and nonhuman animals, is a matter of considerable research activity. Two broad categories of explanations of the acquisition of contingency information have received extensive evaluation: rule-based models and associative models. This article assess the two categories of models for human contingency judgments. The data reveal systematic departures in contingency judgments from the predictions of rule-based models. Recent studies indicate that a contiguity model of Pavlovian conditioning is a useful heuristic for conceptualizing human contingency judgments.

No abstract