Age, Sex, Method, and Interval as Variables in Time Estimation

Gilliland, A. R.; Humphreys, Dorothy Windes

doi:10.1080/08856559.1943.10533232

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The total time required for the procedure was approximately 15min. , Eisler, 1976, Gilliland & Humphreys, 1943, Poppel, 1978, and Stevens & Greenbaum, 1966, for both reviews and original data on these issues). These similarities betweenthe present data and the previous literature may, of course, be fortuitous.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term temporal estimation in humans

Ferguson

Martin

1983

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the ability of subjects to judge the duration of a temporal interval has been investigated using a variety of paradigms, most of the studies have used very short intervals ranging from a few hundred milliseconds to several seconds. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the psychophysical relationship between judged and actual durations of longer intervals ranging from months to years. In Experiment 1, college students were asked to estimate the ages of 12 major news events which had occurred during the previous 5 years. Analysis of median estimates of each item showed that subjects underestimated the ages of the oldest items and overestimated the ages of the most recent items. To determine whether this regression effect was due to a response bias or to the context effect produced by other items on the questionnaire, Experiments 2 and 3 systematically varied the range of allowable response alternatives and the age of the background items that formed the context in which the experimental items were judged. Although the range of allowable response alternatives had a significant effect upon the estimates, no evidencewas obtained for an item context effect. The data are interpreted in terms of a memory-based hypothesis which suggests that the subjects were attempting to recall the time of occurrence of the items and then deriving elapsed time rather than directly judging duration.The ability of subjects to judge the duration of a temporal interval has been closely investigated via a variety of paradigms (see Dember & Warm, 1979, Eisler, 1976, Fraisse, 1963, Ornstein, 1969, and Schiffman, 1976. One indication of the extent of this work is evident in Zelkind and Sprug (1974), who cited nearly 1,200 studies relevant to human time perception. Virtually all of this work has been conducted using experimentally generated intervals ranging from a few hundred milliseconds through approximately 30 sec, with the intervals typically defined by the onset and offset of a stimulus. Although the data are not entirely consistent, there seems to be a consensus (e.g., see Eisler, 1976) that duration estimates, when plotted against actual duration, are best fit by a power function with a slope less than 1.0 and an intercept greater than 0, thus yielding overestimation and underestimation of the shortest and longest intervals, respectively.It would seem to be possible, at least from a methodological viewpoint, to extend this work by examining the functional relationship between judged and actual duration for much longer intervals, ranging over months or even years. Such intervals could not, of course, be generated directly in the laboratory, butThis research was partially supported by Grant 2-S06-RR08090-10 from the National Institute of Mental Health. Part of this work was presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association in March 1981, Atlanta, Georgia. R. P. Ferguson's mailing address is: Department of Psychology, Box 79, Virginia State University. Petersburg, Virginia 23803. a...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term temporal estimation in humans

Ferguson

Martin

1983

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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., Carlson & Feinberg, 1968a, 1968bDanziger & Du Preez, 1963;Doehring, 1961;Gilliland & Humphreys, 1943;Gilliland & Martin, 1940;Goldfarb & Goldstone, 1963b;Goodfellow, 1934;Hawkes, Bailey, & Warm, 1961;Hornstein & Rotter, 1969;Kruup, 1961;McConchie & Rutschmann, 1970, 1971Ochberg, Pollack, & Meyer, 1965;Siegman, 1962;Spivak & Levine, 1964;Treisman, 1963). No single method can claim consistent superiority.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The perception of time

Allan

1979

Perception & Psychophysics

535

346

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…Using the analysis of variance technique, Gilliland and Humphreys (1943) found no statistically significant difference between the three methods, whereas the descriptive results by Clausen (1950) seem to contra dict their findings. Evaluating the intercorrelations of the subtests and the totalled scores, Clausen was able also to show that the results obtained by the method of reproduction were unstable and not comparable with those obtained by the other methods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Considering that counting obviously affects time estimation, but only a few investigators have evaluated such influence (Dobson, 1954;Gilliland & Humphreys, 1943; Goldstone,Boardman & Lhamon,19j8), it seemed necessary to extend the study to allow Influence of iMethod on Time Judgments…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of method on time judgments

Kruup

1961

Australian Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Age, Sex, Method, and Interval as Variables in Time Estimation

Cited by 20 publications

References 2 publications

Long-term temporal estimation in humans

Long-term temporal estimation in humans

The perception of time

The influence of method on time judgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About