Simple and contingent aftereffects of perceived duration in vision and audition

Abstract

After repeated presentations of a long inspection tone (800 or 1,000 msec), a test tone of intermediate duration (600 msec) appeared shorter than it would otherwise appear. A short inspection tone (200 or 400 msec) tended to increase the apparent length of the intermediate test tone. Thus, a negative aftereffect of perceived auditory duration occurred, and a similar aftereffect occurred in the visual modality. These aftereffects, each involving a single sensory dimension, are simple aftereffects. The following procedures produced contingent aftereffects of perceived duration. A pair of lights, the first short and the second long, was presented repeatedly during an inspection period. When a pair of test lights of intermediate duration was then presented, the first member of the pair appeared longer in relation to the second. A similar aftereffect occurred in the auditory modality. In these latter aftereffects, the perceived duration of a test light or tone is contingent-dependent-on its temporal order, first or second, within a pair of test stimuli. An experiment designed to test the possibility of cross-modal.transfer of contingent aftereffects between audition and vision found no significant cross-modal aftereffects.

An investigation of the spatial selectivity of the duration after-effect

“…Similar results have been reported by studies investigating the effect of trial history on duration judgments (Becker & Rasmussen, 2007;Walker, Irion, & Gordon, 1981). These studies also show that presentation of a particular duration causes the perception of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2016.11.003 0042-6989/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.…”

“…However, behavioral studies have shown that trial history effects and the duration after-effect do not show any selectivity to low-level visual features such as orientation (Li, Yuan, & Huang, 2015;Walker et al, 1981), arguing against a role of early visual cortex in channel based duration processing. Furthermore, many other different brain areas have been implicated in duration processing, providing alternative possible neural loci for the channel based encoding of duration (Hayashi et al, 2015;Ivry & Schlerf, 2008;Mauk & Buonomano, 2004).…”

“…These studies also show that presentation of a particular duration causes the perception of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2016.11.003 0042-6989/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. subsequent shorter or longer durations to shift away from the duration that was presented earlier (Becker & Rasmussen, 2007;Walker et al, 1981). Finally, studies investigating duration discrimination training have shown that training benefits such as increased discrimination sensitivity do not transfer to other non-trained durations (Bartolo & Merchant, 2009;Bueti & Buonomano, 2014;Karmarkar & Buonomano, 2003;Wright, Buonomano, Mahncke, & Merzenich, 1997).…”

Perceptual effects of preceding nonspeech rate on temporal properties of speech categories

“…It appears that transition duration, and not rate, provides the primary temporal cue to the stop-continuant contrast (Schwab, Sawusch, & Nusbaum, 1981), so it seems reasonable that preceding temporal information would affect the distinction by means of durational contrast (e.g., Goldstone et al, 1959;Goldstone et al, 1957;Walker & Irion, 1979;Walker et al, 1981). However, the precursor sequences in the experiments described here varied in both the duration and presentation rate of tones, creating a possible confound in this respect.…”

“…Along these lines, Diehl and Walsh (1989) assert that apparent speaking rate effects may result from durational contrast whereby temporal cues, such as the length of an acoustic segment, are perceived relative to nearby segments rather than absolutely. Thus, for example, listeners may accept longer formant transitions for [b] at slower speaking rates not because they reveal something about typical articulation, but simply because they appear shorter than longer surrounding segments, a pattern previously documented for nonspeech tone durations (Goldstone, Boardman, & Lhamon, 1959;Goldstone, Lhamon, & Boardman, 1957;Walker & Irion, 1979;Walker, Irion, & Gordon, 1981). Oller, Eilers, Miskiel, Burns, and Urbano (1991) speculated further on the precise workings of a durational contrast effect.…”