On the discrepant results in synchrony judgment and temporal-order judgment tasks: a quantitative model

Garcı́a-Pérez, Miguel A.; Alcalá-Quintana, Rocío

doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0278-y

Cited by 96 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same is true about just-noticeable differences or other performance measures extracted from SJ and TOJ data, although these additional measures have not been discussed here (García-Pérez & Alcalá-Quintana, 2012a). These empirically observable and undeniable facts reflect a mixture of timing, decisional, and response processes that can only be separated out by fitting model-based psychometric functions with parameters that capture these influences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2b). The IC model just presented must be amended to cover realistically the mapping of judgments onto responses, a process during which errors can be made (see García-Pérez & Alcalá-Quintana, 2012a, 2012b. With this extension, the final form of the psychometric functions in SJ and TOJ tasks are…”

Section: Independent-channels Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper looks at performance in SJ and TOJ tasks under an independent-channels model that makes explicit assumptions about the operation of timing, decisional, and response processes (García-Pérez & Alcalá-Quintana, 2012a). The resultant model-based psychometric functions thus include parameters relating to each of these processes and permit a direct test of differences in each of them across SJ and TOJ tasks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Converging evidence that common timing processes underlie temporal-order and simultaneity judgments: a model-based analysis

Garcı́a-Pérez

Alcalá-Quintana

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perception of simultaneity and temporal order is studied with simultaneity judgment (SJ) and temporal-order judgment (TOJ) tasks. In the former, observers report whether presentation of two stimuli was subjectively simultaneous; in the latter, they report which stimulus was subjectively presented first. SJ and TOJ tasks typically give discrepant results, which has prompted the view that performance is mediated by different processes in each task. We looked at these discrepancies from a model that yields psychometric functions whose parameters characterize the timing, decisional, and response processes involved in SJ and TOJ tasks. We analyzed 12 data sets from published studies in which both tasks had been used in within-subjects designs, all of which had reported differences in performance across tasks. Fitting the model jointly to data from both tasks, we tested the hypothesis that common timing processes sustain simultaneity and temporalorder judgments, with differences in performance arising from task-dependent decisional and response processes. The results supported this hypothesis, also showing that model psychometric functions account for aspects of SJ and TOJ data that classical analyses overlook. Implications for research on perception of simultaneity and temporal order are discussed.Keywords Simultaneity . Temporal order . Timing processes . Decisional processesThe timing processes sustaining perception of simultaneity and temporal order are respectively inferred from observers' performance in simultaneity judgment (SJ) and temporalorder judgment (TOJ) tasks. In both cases, each trial presents a pair of stimuli whose onsets (or offsets) occur at arbitrary times, resulting in a temporal delay regarded as positive when the stimulus designated "test" lags the stimulus designated "reference" and negative when the test stimulus leads the reference stimulus. In SJ tasks, observers report whether presentation (or extinction) of the two stimuli was subjectively simultaneous. Because observers directly report perception of simultaneity, the temporal delay at which simultaneous responses are maximally prevalent is interpreted as the point of subjective simultaneity (PSS). In contrast, in TOJ tasks observers report which stimulus was subjectively presented (or extinguished) first (or second), with no option to report subjective simultaneity. The temporal delay at which observers give equal numbers of "test first" and "reference first" (alternatively, "test second" and "reference second") responses is taken as the PSS, but this is only an indirect measure because the TOJ task avoids collecting evidence of perceived simultaneity. Strictly speaking, such analysis of TOJ data only identifies the temporal delay at which "test first" and "reference first" responses are equally prevalent, which is synonymous with the PSS only under the strong additional assumption that observers give "test first" and "reference first" responses equally often when they perceive simultaneity. Unfortunately, the validity of such a...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Independent-channels Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Converging evidence that common timing processes underlie temporal-order and simultaneity judgments: a model-based analysis

Garcı́a-Pérez

Alcalá-Quintana

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The net effect is that the estimated perceptual midpoint is artifactually shifted in either direction by a meaningful, and potentially large, amount. Such response bias , defined as unbalanced “left”/“right” responses when undecided, 1 produces analogous shifts in many other psychophysical tasks (see, e.g., Alcalá-Quintana & García-Pérez, 2011; García-Pérez & Alcalá-Quintana, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b), and other accounts describe shifts due to what we will define later as decisional bias (see, e.g., Schneider, 2011; Schneider & Komlos, 2008). These findings cast doubts on the validity of estimates of the perceptual midpoint obtained with the landmark task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

The bisection point across variants of the task

Garcı́a-Pérez

Peli

2014

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bisection tasks are used in research on normal space and time perception and to assess the perceptual distortions accompanying neurological disorders. Several variants of the bisection task are used, which often yield inconsistent results, prompting the question of which variant is most dependable and which results are to be trusted. We addressed this question using theoretical and experimental approaches. Theoretical performance in bisection tasks is derived from a general model of psychophysical performance that includes sensory components and decisional processes. The model predicts how performance should differ across variants of the task, even when the sensory component is fixed. To test these predictions, data were collected in a within-subjects study with several variants of a spatial bisection task, including a two-response variant in which observers indicated whether a line was transected to the right or left of the midpoint, a three-response variant (which included the additional option to respond “midpoint”), and a paired-comparison variant of the three-response format. The data supported the model predictions, revealing that estimated bisection points were least dependable with the two-response variant, because this format confounds perceptual and decisional influences. Only the three-response paired-comparison format can separate out these influences. Implications for research in basic and clinical fields are discussed.

show abstract

“…However, especially in trials with very short SOAs, perceptually undecided participants could be inclined to respond with the location that was most salient in the experiment, namely the location in which they expected pain. A shift in PSS values could then reflect a bias in the decision process, rather than a genuinely perceptual effect of pain anticipation (for a more extensive discussion of response bias in TOJ tasks, see García-Pérez & Alcalá-Quintana, 2012;Spence & Parise, 2010). Filbrich et al (2016) argued that it is likely that the instructions used in our studies (Vanden Bulcke et al, 2013 have strongly induced such response bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional bias to pain-relevant body locations: New methods, new challenges

Damme

Bulcke

Durnez

et al. 2016

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent issue of Consciousness and Cognition, Filbrich, Torta, Vanderclausen, Azanon, and Legrain (2016) commented on a paper in which we used a tactile Temporal Order Judgment (TOJ) task to show that expecting pain on a specific body location biased attention to that location (Vanden Bulcke, Crombez, Durnez, & Van Damme, 2015). Their main criticism is that the effects are likely to reflect response bias rather than genuine attentional bias. We agree that the TOJ task used may be susceptible to response bias, and welcome the authors' methodological suggestions to control for such bias. However, we feel that certain aspects of our work are misrepresented in their paper. Most importantly, we contest their argument that our instructions made the threat location task-relevant, thereby increasing risk of response bias. Further, we reply to other methodological and theoretical issues raised by these authors.

show abstract

On the discrepant results in synchrony judgment and temporal-order judgment tasks: a quantitative model

Cited by 96 publications

References 56 publications

Converging evidence that common timing processes underlie temporal-order and simultaneity judgments: a model-based analysis

Converging evidence that common timing processes underlie temporal-order and simultaneity judgments: a model-based analysis

The bisection point across variants of the task

Attentional bias to pain-relevant body locations: New methods, new challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About