Temporal error monitoring with directional error magnitude judgements: a robust phenomenon with no effect of being watched

Öztel, Tutku; Eskenazi, Terry; Balcı, Fuat

doi:10.1007/s00426-020-01379-0

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Linear mixed effects model revealed a statistically significant effect of timing error on recoded confidence ratings (ß = 0.63, SE = 0.03, p < .001). These results point out that participants could monitor the direction and magnitude of their temporal errors on a trial-by-trial basis, which is in line with the previous work (e.g., Akdoğan & Balcı, 2017; Kononowicz et al, 2019; Öztel et al, 2020b). Figure 3 illustrates this linear relationship between timing errors and the recoded confidence judgements.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Consistent with earlier work, our results also demonstrated that participants in the self-evaluation condition could monitor the direction as well as the magnitude of their temporal errors on a trial-by-trial basis (e.g., Akdoğan & Balcı, 2017; Kononowicz et al, 2019; Yallak & Balcı, 2021; Öztel et al, 2020b). However, this trial-by-trial temporal error monitoring ability did not apply to the global monitoring of the temporal bias directions in any of the conditions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Humans can monitor trial-based but not global timing errors: Evidence for relative judgements in temporal error monitoring

Öztel

Balcı

2022

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans can monitor the magnitude and direction of their temporal errors on individual trials. Based on the predictions of our model of temporal error monitoring that rely on a relative comparison of internal clock readings, we predict that participants would monitor their timing errors in individual trials, but not the direction of their global timing errors without external feedback. One study has indeed found that accurate self-monitoring of average timing biases required external feedback with directional information. The current study investigates how different sources of feedback (i.e., internal or external) affect the performance in the self monitoring of average timing bias. Four groups of participants were tested in a temporal reproduction task. Participants in the self evaluation condition evaluated the direction and size of their reproduction errors in individual trials. In the accurate feedback condition, participants received explicit trial-based feedback regarding the direction of their error while participants in the partially-accurate feedback condition received trial-based feedback according to the accuracy of short-long judgments of another participant in the self evaluation condition. Participants in the control condition reproduced only the target duration without making any judgments regarding their reproduction performance or receiving any external feedback about it. Results showed that while participants accurately monitor timing errors in individual trials, in none of the experimental conditions they were more accurate than the chance level in terms of evaluating the direction of their average temporal bias. We discuss these results in terms of the temporal error monitoring model introduced by Akdoğan and Balcı (2017). Thus, our findings suggest that external directional feedback does not have any informational value for global temporal bias judgments above and beyond internal self-monitoring.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Humans can monitor trial-based but not global timing errors: Evidence for relative judgements in temporal error monitoring

Öztel

Balcı

2022

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The next iteration of our study could integrate an assessment of confidence to reinforce our claim of self-awareness of timing errors. Allowing subjects to use a sliding scale to mark how close they are to the target duration has been successfully used in prior studies, such as the M/EEG study of self-awareness during temporal production ( Kononowicz et al 2018 ) or a more recent experiment investigating the influence of social modulation of being observed while performing the timing reproduction task ( Öztel et al 2020 ). Finally, as the auditory modality has greater temporal resolution than the visual domain ( Kanabus et al 2002 ) and is the privileged, dominant sensory domain in the area of time perception ( Guttman et al 2005 ; Burr et al 2009 ; Kanai et al 2011 ), future studies may entail an auditory version of the temporal reproduction task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Awareness of errors and feedback in human time estimation

Bader

Wiener

2021

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral and electrophysiology studies have shown that humans possess a certain self-awareness of their individual timing ability. However, conflicting reports raise concerns about whether humans can discern the direction of their timing error, calling into question the extent of this timing awareness. To understand the depth of this ability, the impact of nondirectional feedback and reinforcement learning on time perception were examined in a unique temporal reproduction paradigm that involved a mixed set of interval durations and the opportunity to repeat every trial immediately after receiving feedback, essentially allowing a “redo.” Within this task, we tested two groups of participants on versions where nondirectional feedback was provided after every response, or not provided at all. Participants in both groups demonstrated reduced central tendency and exhibited significantly greater accuracy in the redo trial temporal estimates, showcasing metacognitive ability, and an inherent capacity to adjust temporal responses despite the lack of directional information or any feedback at all. Additionally, the feedback group also exhibited an increase in the precision of responses on the redo trials, an effect not observed in the no-feedback group, suggesting that feedback may specifically reduce noise when making a temporal estimate. These findings enhance our understanding of timing self-awareness and can provide insight into what may transpire when this is disrupted.

show abstract

“…Retrospective reports on the perceived benefit of counting are also interesting with respect to the process of temporal error monitoring (Akdoğan & Balcı, 2017 ; Öztel et al, 2021 ; Riemer et al, 2019 ). According to the retrospective self-reports, the advantage of chronometric counting was clearly perceived during the classical discrimination task, while participants seemed to be much less aware of it during the modified task version.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the tendency for chronometric counting in duration discrimination tasks

Riemer

Vieweg

Rijn

et al. 2022

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chronometric counting is a prevalent issue in the study of human time perception as it reduces the construct validity of tasks and can conceal existing timing deficits. Several methods have been proposed to prevent counting strategies, but the factors promoting those strategies in specific tasks are largely uninvestigated. Here, we modified a classical two-interval duration discrimination task in two aspects that could affect the tendency to apply counting strategies. We removed the pause between the two intervals and changed the task instructions: Participants decided whether a short event occurred in the first or in the second half of a reference duration. In Experiment 1, both classical and modified task versions were performed under timing conditions, in which participants were asked not to count, and counting conditions, in which counting was explicitly instructed. The task modifications led to (i) a general decrease in judgment precision, (ii) a shift of the point of subjective equality, and (iii) a counting-related increase in reaction times, suggesting enhanced cognitive effort of counting during the modified task version. Precision in the two task versions was not differently affected by instructed counting. Experiment 2 demonstrates that—in the absence of any counting-related instructions—participants are less likely to engage in spontaneous counting in the modified task version. These results enhance our understanding of the two-interval duration discrimination task and demonstrate that the modifications tested here—although they do not significantly reduce the effectiveness of instructed counting—can diminish the spontaneous tendency to adopt counting strategies.

show abstract

Temporal error monitoring with directional error magnitude judgements: a robust phenomenon with no effect of being watched

Cited by 8 publications

References 38 publications

Humans can monitor trial-based but not global timing errors: Evidence for relative judgements in temporal error monitoring

Humans can monitor trial-based but not global timing errors: Evidence for relative judgements in temporal error monitoring

Awareness of errors and feedback in human time estimation

Reducing the tendency for chronometric counting in duration discrimination tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About