Humans can monitor trial-based but not global timing errors: Evidence for relative judgements in temporal error monitoring

Abstract

Humans can monitor the magnitude and direction of their temporal errors on individual trials. Based on the predictions of our model of temporal error monitoring that rely on a relative comparison of internal clock readings, we predict that participants would monitor their timing errors in individual trials, but not the direction of their global timing errors without external feedback. One study has indeed found that accurate self-monitoring of average timing biases required external feedback with directional information. The current study investigates how different sources of feedback (i.e., internal or external) affect the performance in the self monitoring of average timing bias. Four groups of participants were tested in a temporal reproduction task. Participants in the self evaluation condition evaluated the direction and size of their reproduction errors in individual trials. In the accurate feedback condition, participants received explicit trial-based feedback regarding the direction of their error while participants in the partially-accurate feedback condition received trial-based feedback according to the accuracy of short-long judgments of another participant in the self evaluation condition. Participants in the control condition reproduced only the target duration without making any judgments regarding their reproduction performance or receiving any external feedback about it. Results showed that while participants accurately monitor timing errors in individual trials, in none of the experimental conditions they were more accurate than the chance level in terms of evaluating the direction of their average temporal bias. We discuss these results in terms of the temporal error monitoring model introduced by Akdoğan and Balcı (2017). Thus, our findings suggest that external directional feedback does not have any informational value for global temporal bias judgments above and beyond internal self-monitoring.

Temporal unpredictability increases error monitoring as revealed by EEG–EMG investigation

“…By revealing the modulatory effects of temporal unpredictability on performance monitoring, our study complements the recent literature demonstrating that humans possess an ability to monitor their timing errors better than chance (Kononowicz et al, 2018;Öztel & Balcı, 2022;Riemer et al, 2019). This metacognitive capability has been even found in rodents, suggesting the evolutionary significance of temporal error judgments (Balci, 2022;Kononowicz et al, 2022).…”

Metric error monitoring as a component of metacognitive processing

“…These findings support the idea that human participants' metacognitive abilities previously observed in 2AFC paradigms generalize to temporal error monitoring. These findings were replicated by , where participants were tested in a temporal production task and rated their error magnitude (and direction) on a slider scale (see also Öztel et al, 2021;Öztel & Balcı, 2023a).…”

“…Riemer et al (2019) showed that correct monitoring of overall temporal biases occurred only when trial‐based feedback included error direction information. However, Öztel and Balcı (2023a) did not find the same effect of trial‐based feedback on the global monitoring of temporal biases. These findings collectively suggest that monitoring overall temporal biases on a global scale might not be feasible without trial‐by‐trial feedback that includes directional and magnitude information, as indicated by Riemer et al (2019).…”

“…One disadvantage of this approach is that it relies on a single‐shot measure, resulting in a loss of critical variance (akin to the difference between prospective and retrospective timing tasks). Moreover, the results obtained from global operationalizations have so far yielded inconsistent results (Brocas et al, 2018; Öztel & Balcı, 2023a; Riemer et al, 2019). For instance, although Brocas et al (2018) showed that participants can keep track of their overall timing biases, this was not the case in Öztel and Balcı (2023a).…”

“…Moreover, the results obtained from global operationalizations have so far yielded inconsistent results (Brocas et al, 2018; Öztel & Balcı, 2023a; Riemer et al, 2019). For instance, although Brocas et al (2018) showed that participants can keep track of their overall timing biases, this was not the case in Öztel and Balcı (2023a). These inconsistencies might also result from the possible disruptive effects of working memory load increasing over the trials (for a discussion, see Riemer et al, 2019; Öztel & Balcı, 2023a) akin to the distinction between competence and performance (Chomsky, 1965).…”