Modality and intermittency effects on time estimation

Ortega, Laura; López, Florente; Church, Russell M.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2009.02.009

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the delay period had little to no effect on duration judgment when the comparison stimulus was auditory (Experiments 1B, 2, and 3). These results support the idea that the process involved in remembering duration is separable, depending on sensory modality (Chen & Yeh, 2009;Grondin, 2003;Lapid et al, 2009;Noulhiane et al, 2009;Ortega et al, 2009;Rattat & Picard, 2012). They also imply that the memory process used for duration judgment might depend on how the retained duration is used (Bueti & Walsh, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Much research has focused on whether there is a central clock system to which all time perception subprocesses refer or whether there are distributed clocks specific to each subprocess (Grondin, 2010;Ivry & Schlerf, 2008;Mauk & Buonomano, 2004;Nobre & O'Reilly, 2004). This question has been examined by comparing time perception in different sensory modalities, and the results thus far support the idea that the time perception process is specific to sensory modalities (Chen & Yeh, 2009;Lapid, Ulrich, & Rammsayer, 2009;Noulhiane, Pouthas, & Samson, 2009;Ortega, Lopez, & Church, 2009;Rattat & Picard, 2012; for a review, see Grondin, 2010, pp. 567-568).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…It has been discussed for some time whether the internal clock is specific to certain sensory modalities (Noulhiane et al, 2009;Ortega et al, 2009; for a review, see Grondin, 2010). A number of studies have shown a difference in time resolution (Grondin, 2003;Grondin & McAuley, 2009) or in subjective duration for a physically equal duration (Wearden et al, 1998) among different sensory modalities, leading to the idea of distributed internal clocks in the brain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Short-term memory for event duration: Modality specificity and goal dependency

Takahashi

Watanabe

2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Time perception is involved in various cognitive functions. This study investigated the characteristics of short-term memory for event duration by examining how the length of the retention period affects interand intramodal duration judgment. On each trial, a sample stimulus was followed by a comparison stimulus, after a variable delay period (0.5-5 s). The sample and comparison stimuli were presented in the visual or auditory modality. The participants determined whether the comparison stimulus was longer or shorter than the sample stimulus. The distortion pattern of subjective duration during the delay period depended on the sensory modality of the comparison stimulus but was not affected by that of the sample stimulus. When the comparison stimulus was visually presented, the retained duration of the sample stimulus was shortened as the delay period increased. Contrarily, when the comparison stimulus was presented in the auditory modality, the delay period had little to no effect on the retained duration. Furthermore, whenever the participants did not know the sensory modality of the comparison stimulus beforehand, the effect of the delay period disappeared. These results suggest that the memory process for event duration is specific to sensory modality and that its performance is determined depending on the sensory modality in which the retained duration will be used subsequently.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Short-term memory for event duration: Modality specificity and goal dependency

Takahashi

Watanabe

2012

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several empirical data show that, for objectively similar durations, auditory signals are often judged to be longer than visual ones (e.g., Behar & Bevan, 1961;Droit-Volet, Meck, & Penney, 2007;Droit-Volet, Wearden, & Delgado-Yonger, 2007;Goldstone & Goldfarb, 1964;Grondin, MeilleurWells, Ouellette, & Macar, 1998;Ortega, Lopez, & Church, 2009;Walker & Scott, 1981;Wearden, Edwards, Fakhri, & Percival, 1998). The occurrence of this modality effect on duration perception is not, however, systematic (e.g., Brown & Hitchcock, 1965;Kagerer, Wittman, Szelag, & Steinbuchel, 2002; see also Penney & Tourret, 2005, for a review).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Short-term memory for auditory and visual durations: evidence for selective interference effects

Rattat

Picard²

2011

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study sought to determine the format in which visual, auditory and auditory-visual durations ranging from 400 to 600 ms are encoded and maintained in short-term memory, using suppression conditions. Participants compared two stimulus durations separated by an interval of 8 s. During this time, they performed either an articulatory suppression task, a visuospatial tracking task or no specific task at all (control condition). The results showed that the articulatory suppression task decreased recognition performance for auditory durations but not for visual or bimodal ones, whereas the visuospatial task decreased recognition performance for visual durations but not for auditory or bimodal ones. These findings support the modality-specific account of short-term memory for durations.

show abstract

“…Numerous studies consistently demonstrated effects of sensory modality on perceived duration indicating that auditory stimuli are perceived as longer than visual ones of the same physical duration (Ortega, Lopez, & Church, 2009;Penney, 2003;Penney, Gibbon, & Meck, 2000;Penney, & Tourret, 2005;Ulrich, Nitschke, & Rammsayer, 2006;Walker, & Scott, 1981;Wearden, Edwards, Fakhri, & Percival, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Auditory and visual temporal sensitivity: evidence for a hierarchical structure of modality-specific and modality-independent levels of temporal information processing

Stauffer

Haldemann

Troche

et al. 2011

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated modality-specific differences in processing of temporal information in the subsecond range. For this purpose, participants performed auditory and visual versions of a rhythm perception and three different duration discrimination tasks to allow for a direct, systematic comparison across both sensory modalities. Our findings clearly indicate higher temporal sensitivity in the auditory than in the visual domain irrespective of type of timing task. To further evaluate whether there is evidence for a common modality-independent timing mechanism or for multiple modality-specific mechanisms, we used structural equation modeling to test three different theoretical models. Neither a single modality-independent timing mechanism, nor two independent modality-specific timing mechanisms fitted the empirical data. Rather, the data are well described by a hierarchical model with modality-specific visual and auditory temporal processing at a first level and a modality-independent processing system at a second level of the hierarchy.

show abstract

Modality and intermittency effects on time estimation

Cited by 22 publications

References 23 publications

Short-term memory for event duration: Modality specificity and goal dependency

Short-term memory for event duration: Modality specificity and goal dependency

Short-term memory for auditory and visual durations: evidence for selective interference effects

Auditory and visual temporal sensitivity: evidence for a hierarchical structure of modality-specific and modality-independent levels of temporal information processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About