Factors in time Estimation and a Case for the Internal Clock

Zelkind, Irving

doi:10.1080/00221309.1973.9920735

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, stimuli that are bright, large, and loud are typically perceived as longer than dimmed, soft, and small stimuli (Ekman et al, 1969;Goldstone et al, 1978;Matthews, 2011b;Xuan et al, 2007;Zelkind, 1973). Johnston et al (2006) was among the first to suggest that magnitude-mediated temporal illusions can be experimentally induced.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural repetition suppression modulates time perception: Evidence from electrophysiology and pupillometry

Kruijne

Olivers

Rijn

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human time perception is malleable and subject to many biases. For example, it has repeatedly been shown that stimuli that are physically intense or that are unexpected seem to last longer. Two competing hypotheses have been proposed to account for such biases: one states that these temporal illusions are the result of increased levels of arousal which speeds up neural clock dynamics, whereas the alternative ‘magnitude coding’ account states that the magnitude of sensory responses causally modulates perceived durations. Common experimental paradigms used to study temporal biases can not dissociate between these accounts, as arousal and sensory magnitude covary and modulate each other. Here, we present two temporal discrimination experiments where two flashing stimuli demarcated the start and end of a to-be-timed interval. These stimuli could either be in the same or in a different location, which led to different sensory responses due to neural repetition suppression. Crucially, changes and repetitions were fully predictable, which allowed us explore effects of sensory response magnitude without impacting arousal or surprise. Intervals with changing markers were perceived as lasting longer than those with repeating markers. We measured EEG (Experiment 1) and pupil size (Experiment 2), and found that temporal perception was related to changes in event-related potentials (P2) and pupil constriction, both of which have been related to responses in sensory cortex. Conversely, correlates of surprise and arousal (P3 amplitude and pupil dilation) were unaffected by stimulus repetitions and changes. These results demonstrate, for the first time, that sensory magnitude affects time perception even under constant levels of arousal.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural repetition suppression modulates time perception: Evidence from electrophysiology and pupillometry

Kruijne

Olivers

Rijn

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has usually been found that judged duration is directly related to the energy levelof the filled interval (Berglund, Berglund, Ekman, & Frankenhaeuser, 1969;Goldstone & Lhamon, 1974;Goldstone, Lhamon, & Sechzer, 1978;Steiner, 1968;Zelkind, 1973); however, Treisman (1963) reports a decrease in produced and reproduced intervals with increasing tone intensity. Woodrow (1928) showed that the duration of the marker of an empty interval influenced its perceived duration: Lengthening either the onset marker or the offset marker results in an increase in judged duration, with the duration of the onset marker having the larger effect.…”

Section: The Role Of Nontemporal Informationmentioning

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

“…According to Hornstein and Rotter (1969), three basic measurement methods can be distinguished: (1) the method of verbal estimation in which the participant verbally indicates the duration of a physically given time interval; (2) the method of production in which the participant is required to produce operatively (e.g., per response key) a time interval verbally stated by the experimenter and (3) the method of reproduction in which the participant is asked to reproduce operatively a time interval first given physically by the experimenter. It is widely accepted that time judgments partly depend on the measurement method used (see for example, Brown, 1985;Carlson & Feinberg, 1970;Clausen, 1950;Hornstein & Rotter, 1969;Zelkind, 1973). According to Hornstein and Rotter (1969), underestimations of a given time interval occur more likely when the participant is requested to judge the time by means of the production or reproduction method, whereas overestimations are more likely observed when the method of verbal estimation is used.…”

Section: Subjective Time Estimation (Ste)mentioning

confidence: 98%