Attention and the subjective expansion of time

Tse, Peter U.; Intriligator, James; Rivest, Josée; Cavanagh, Patrick

doi:10.3758/bf03196844

Cited by 449 publications

(582 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

523

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…IOR has been shown to have a spatial gradient, being strongest at the attended location and decreasing in magnitude with visual distance (Bennett & Pratt, 2001). Earlier studies on duration perception have shown that attended stimuli are perceived as having a longer duration compared to unattended stimuli or stimuli that receive less attention (Block, Hancock, & Zakay, 2010;Tse, Intriligator, Rivest, & Cavanagh, 2004;Ulrich, Nitschke, & Rammsayer, 2006). In our study, participants were presented with four top-up stimuli at the adapted location followed by the cross-modal duration judgment task, with the visual test stimulus being presented between 1000 and 2000 ms after the last top-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of the spatial selectivity of the duration after-effect

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tAdaptation to the duration of a visual stimulus causes the perceived duration of a subsequently presented stimulus with a slightly different duration to be skewed away from the adapted duration. This pattern of repulsion following adaptation is similar to that observed for other visual properties, such as orientation, and is considered evidence for the involvement of duration-selective mechanisms in duration encoding. Here, we investigated whether the encoding of duration -by duration-selective mechanisms -occurs early on in the visual processing hierarchy. To this end, we investigated the spatial specificity of the duration after-effect in two experiments. We measured the duration after-effect at adapter-test distances ranging between 0 and 15°of visual angle and for within-and between-hemifield presentations. We replicated the duration after-effect: the test stimulus was perceived to have a longer duration following adaptation to a shorter duration, and a shorter duration following adaptation to a longer duration. Importantly, this duration after-effect occurred at all measured distances, with no evidence for a decrease in the magnitude of the after-effect at larger distances or across hemifields. This shows that adaptation to duration does not result from adaptation occurring early on in the visual processing hierarchy. Instead, it seems likely that duration information is a high-level stimulus property that is encoded later on in the visual processing hierarchy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An investigation of the spatial selectivity of the duration after-effect

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of studies have shown that when arousal level is increased, participants are prone to underestimating time intervals, which has been attributed to an increase in pacemaker pulse rate (Gruber and Block 2005;Meck 1996;Penton-Voak et al 1996). In addition, distortions in time have also been reported due to attentional shifts by a distractor or unexpected event that changes the rate of information processing and thus the perception of elapsed time (Eagleman et al 2005;Tse et al 2004). Whereas these studies have typically involved perceptual discrimination or replication of a time interval, the current study indicates that a similar effect can be seen for movement preparation and execution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor preparation of spatially and temporally defined movements: evidence from startle

Maslovat

Hodges

Chua

et al. 2011

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that the preparation of a spatially targeted movement performed at maximal speed is different from that of a temporally constrained movement (Gottlieb et al. 1989b). In the current study, we directly examined preparation differences in temporally vs. spatially defined movements through the use of a startling stimulus and manipulation of the task goals. Participants performed arm extension movements to one of three spatial targets (20°, 40°, 60°) and an arm extension movement of 20°at three movement speeds (slow, moderate, fast). All movements were performed in a blocked, simple reaction time paradigm, with trials involving a startling stimulus (124 dB) interspersed randomly with control trials. As predicted, spatial movements were modulated by agonist duration and timed movements were modulated by agonist rise time. The startling stimulus triggered all movements at short latencies with a compression of the kinematic and electromyogram (EMG) profile such that they were performed faster than control trials. However, temporally constrained movements showed a differential effect of movement compression on startle trials such that the slowest movement showed the greatest temporal compression. The startling stimulus also decreased the relative timing between EMG bursts more for the 20°movement when it was defined by a temporal rather than spatial goal, which we attributed to the disruption of an internal timekeeper for the timed movements. These results confirm that temporally defined movements were prepared in a different manner from spatially defined movements and provide new information pertaining to these preparation differences.

show abstract

“…The most widely-repeated finding is that moving stimuli seem to last longer than static ones (e.g., S. W. Brown, 1995;Kanai, Paffen, Hogendoorn, & Verstraten, 2006;Lhamon & Goldstone, 1975), and that apparent duration increases with increasing stimulus speed (e.g., Beckmann & Young, 2009; S. W. Brown, 1995;Kaneko & Murakami, 2009;Leiser, Stern, & Meyer, 1991). Some caution is needed before accepting the generality of these conclusions because the results are context-dependent: a stationary oddball shown in a train of moving stimuli will have longer subjective duration (Tse, Intriligator, Rivest, & Cavanagh, 2004).…”

Section: Time Winding Down: How Do Changes In Speed Affect the Percepmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do changes in speed affect the perception of duration?

Matthews¹

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Six experiments investigated how changes in stimulus speed influence subjective duration. Participants saw rotating or translating shapes in three conditions: constant speed, accelerating motion, and decelerating motion. The distance moved and average speed were the same in all three conditions. In temporal judgment tasks, the constant-speed objects seemed to last longer than the decelerating objects, which in turn seemed to last longer than the accelerating stimuli. In temporal reproduction tasks, the difference between accelerating and decelerating stimuli disappeared; furthermore, watching an accelerating shape lengthened the apparent duration of the subsequent (static) display. These results (a) suggest that temporal judgment and reproduction can dissociate for moving stimuli because the stimulus influences the apparent duration of the subsequent interval, and (b) constrain theories of time perception, including those which emphasize memory storage, those which emphasize the existence of a pacemakeraccumulator timing system, and those which emphasize the division of attention between temporal and non-temporal information processing.

show abstract

Attention and the subjective expansion of time

Cited by 449 publications

References 57 publications

An investigation of the spatial selectivity of the duration after-effect

An investigation of the spatial selectivity of the duration after-effect

Motor preparation of spatially and temporally defined movements: evidence from startle

How do changes in speed affect the perception of duration?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About