Temporal Binding in Multi-Step Action-Event Sequences is Driven by Altered Effect Perception

Distracted to a fault: Attention, actions, and time perception

“…This question would present an exciting avenue for future studies in our view, possibly introducing tertiary, attention-capturing events with more or less saliency into classical operant action-effect sequences, thereby studying a possibly more ecologically valid scenario as the simple, distraction-free action-effect sequences we typically employ in the laboratory. For example, temporal binding effects for action-effect sequences with more than two events indicate that binding can occur for every event within that sequence dependent on the interval length between events, although action binding remains notoriously small or even absent (especially for middle events) in multiple-event sequences (Muth et al, 2022;Ruess et al, 2018). This replicates previous findings that the time perception of action events is not as malleable as the time perception of these actions' effects, possibly due to the participants' perceptual certainty regarding their own actions.…”

“…Acting changes our time perception. When we perform a simple action (e.g., pressing a key) to elicit a subsequent effect (e.g., a tone) after a short delay, performing this action-effect sequence seems to lead to an underestimation of the time interval in between action and effect (Haggard et al, 2002;Muth et al, 2022;Ruess et al, 2017Ruess et al, , 2018Schwarz, Weller, Pfister, & Kunde, 2019b;Tanaka et al, 2019;Tramacere & Allen, 2022). We thus likely perceive action and effect as temporally closer together than they actually are, and we estimate actions and effects differently in time as part of an actioneffect sequence than when we encounter them individually (i.e., pressing only a key without consequence or hearing a tone without producing it ourselves).…”

Libet’s legacy: A primer to the neuroscience of volition

“…It refers to the mutual "attraction" (or binding) of the corresponding M time (perceived time of action) and S time (perceived time of feedback). In other words, M times are pushed forward and S times are pushed back in time, if the action is perceived as self-caused and the feedback is perceived as caused by the action (Antusch et al, 2019;Aytemur & Levita, 2021;Barlas & Obhi, 2013;Cavazzana et al, 2014;Desantis et al, 2011;Engbert et al, 2008;Haggard et al, 2002;Haggard & Clark, 2003;Moore & Haggard, 2008;Muth et al, 2022;Pansardi et al, 2020;Ruess et al, 2020aRuess et al, , 2020bStrother et al, 2010;K. Tanaka & Watanabe, 2021;T.…”

When Good Intention Goes Away: Social Feedback Modulates the Influence of Outcome Valence on Temporal Binding

“…Most of the previous studies have focused solely on single actions and single outcomes. Only a limited amount of research has investigated TB in complex sequences of actions and outcomes (Muth, Wirth, & Kunde, 2022; Ruess, Thomaschke, Haering, Wenke, & Kiesel, 2018; Yabe, Dave, & Goodale, 2017), such as multi‐step action‐event sequences. However, the influence of integrating post‐action information from multiple sources on TB remains largely unexplored.…”