Prior time uncertainty reduction of foreperiod duration under two different levels of event uncertainty in process and reactive schizophrenia

Abstract

Process and reactive schizophrenic Ss judged stimulus durations of .50 and .55 seconds. Stimulus was 1, 3 or 5 dark dots and was preceded by variable foreperiod duration of 1, 3 or 5 seconds. Judgment of stimulus duration was found to be a monotonically increasing function of foreperiod duration. When pitch of the auditory warning signal was correlated with foreperiod duration so that it functioned as prior time information, such monotonic function was eliminated for process schizophrenics only when the numerosity of dots was constant from trial to trial. The effect of prior time information that concerned foreperiod duration was negligible for both process and reactive schizophrenics when the numerosity of dots was variable from trial to trial. Uniqueness of process schizophrenia was shown to be associated with prior time uncertainty reduction of foreperiod duration in the context of minimal event uncertainty of stimulus.

Perceptual aberration and brain hemisphere reversal of foreperiod effect on time estimation

“…As has been shown previously (Mo, Kersey, & Lowe, 1977), prior time information effect is a characteristic unique to process, but not to reactive, schizophrenia. Furthermore, the fact that hemispheric reversal of time information is a phenomenon common to those who manifest PAB and those who suffer from process schizophrenia leads to speculation that PAB and premorbid adjustment may be related.…”

On ego regression and prior time information effect in schizophrenia

“…This fact, is in agreement with the finding of the previous study, which deal with prior TI effect with respect to the dimension of premorbid adjustment (Mo, Kersey, & Lowe, 1977). The reason why schizophrenics are influenced inordinately by PFP in RT experiment, but not in TE experiment must be attributed to factors unique to RT experiment and not to the nature of temporal experience.…”

A meta-analytical review of the familiarity temporal effect: Testing assumptions of the attentional and the fluency-attributional accounts.

“…Thus, retrospective studies involving other mechanisms (for a discussion, see Brown, 1985; Ornstein, 1969) and studies reporting intratrial, immediate repetition manipulations using the oddball paradigm (see Matthews & Gheorghiu, 2016; Matthews & Meck, 2016) were excluded.Only experimental data from healthy adult human individuals were included. Studies using exclusive clinical populations with some form of health or psychopathology were excluded (e.g., Mo, Kersey, & Lowe, 1977). Studies conducted with children or adolescents younger than 18 years (e.g., Avant, Lyman, Skowronski, & Millspaugh, 1977), or with primates or other animals (e.g., Sadeghi, Pariyadath, Apte, Eagleman, & Cook, 2011) were also excluded.Data included in our analysis derived from performances in a temporal task (i.e., judgments, estimation, discrimination, production, and reproduction) and, thus, only responses representing prospective duration judgments were used as the dependent measure.…”

“…Only experimental data from healthy adult human individuals were included. Studies using exclusive clinical populations with some form of health or psychopathology were excluded (e.g., Mo, Kersey, & Lowe, 1977). Studies conducted with children or adolescents younger than 18 years (e.g., Avant, Lyman, Skowronski, & Millspaugh, 1977), or with primates or other animals (e.g., Sadeghi, Pariyadath, Apte, Eagleman, & Cook, 2011) were also excluded.…”