The effects of numerical magnitude, size, and color saturation on perceived interval duration.

Abstract

The relative magnitude (or intensity) of an event can have direct implications on timing estimation. Previous studies have found that greater magnitude stimuli are often reported as longer in duration than lesser magnitudes, including Arabic digits (Xuan, Zhang, He, & Chen, 2007). One explanation for these findings is that different quantitative dimensions (size, intensity, number) are processed and represented according to a common analog magnitude system (Walsh, 2003). In the current study, we examined whether there were commonalities in how people judge the intervals of time occurring between discrete stimuli of different magnitudes across a variety of quantitative dimensions, which included number, size, and color saturation. It was found that duration judgments increased systematically as the overall magnitude difference between sequentially presented stimuli increased. This finding was robust against manipulations to the direction of the sequence, or whether the sequence followed ordered (continuous) or nonordered (discontinuous) pattern trajectories.

Is 9 louder than 1? Audiovisual cross-modal interactions between number magnitude and judged sound loudness

“…For example, the magnitudes of task-irrelevant symbolic numbers impact judgments about physical size and length (De Hevia, Girelli, Bricolo, & Vallar, 2008;A Henik & Tzelgov, 1982;Viarouge & de Hevia, 2013), numerosity (Naparstek & Henik, 2010), duration (AlardsTomalin, Leboe-McGowan, Shaw, & Leboe-McGowan, 2014;Kiesel & Vierck, 2009;Oliveri et al, 2008;Vicario et al, 2008;Xuan, Chen, He, & Zhang, 2009;Xuan, Zhang, He, & Chen, 2007), and luminance (i.e., brightness) (Cohen Kadosh et al, 2008;Cohen Kadosh, Henik, & Walsh, 2007; but see Pinel et al, 2004). Furthermore, they also interfere with basic spatial-motor response selection, including the performance speed of left vs. right handed responses (Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993;Nuerk, Wood, & Willmes, 2005), precision motor responses (pinch vs. whole hand grasps) responses, and grip aperture (Andres, Ostry, Nicol, & Paus, 2008;Lindemann, Abolafia, Girardi, & Bekkering, 2007).…”

The Impact of Perceptual/Concurrent and Mnemonic Digits on Temporal Processing: A Congruency Effect of Numerical Magnitudes

“…These findings are consistent with previous studies reporting many interference effects of various non-temporal magnitude dimensions on concurrent temporal processing. For example, a duration was judged longer subjectively if it was larger in size (Xuan et al, 2007; Alards-Tomalin et al, 2014; Rammsayer and Verner, 2014), consisted of more items (Mo and Michalski, 1972; Long and Beaton, 1981; Dormal et al, 2006; Xuan et al, 2007; Hayashi et al, 2013), had a higher intensity (Berglund et al, 1969; Ekman et al, 1969; Goldstone et al, 1978; Matthews et al, 2011), had a higher speed (Kanai et al, 2006), contained stimuli with a longer line (Casasanto and Boroditsky, 2008), presented in the right hemispace (Vicario et al, 2008), or occupied a body gesture covering longer spatial distance (Cai et al, 2013). Traditionally, those effects were explained in a theoretic framework of commonly shared representational system among various magnitude dimensions, including time, space and quantity.…”

“…It has been well-established that temporal processing 1 is influenced by temporal as well as non-temporal information (e.g., Fortin et al, 1993; Brown, 1997; Mattes and Ulrich, 1998; Oliveri et al, 2008; Eagleman and Pariyadath, 2009). Specifically, various non-temporal, magnitude dimensions, such as stimulus size, number of contained items, intensity and speed, exert critical impact on perceived durations (Berglund et al, 1969; Mo and Michalski, 1972; Dormal et al, 2006; Kanai and Watanabe, 2006; Xuan et al, 2007; Alards-Tomalin et al, 2014; Rammsayer and Verner, 2014). …”

Sample size bias in retrospective estimates of average duration

“…There are two lines of research that, taken together, suggest that there will be a sample size bias on estimates of average duration. The first consists of studies showing that estimates of duration can be biased by other nontemporal dimensions of a stimulus (e.g., Alards-Tomalin, Leboe-McGowan, Shaw, & Leboe-McGowan, 2014;Brigner, 1986;Fabbri, Cancellieri, & Natale, 2012;Matthews, Stewart, & Wearden, 2011;Xuan, Zhang, He, & Chen, 2007; for a review, see Matthews & Meck, 2016). For example, Casasanto and Boroditsky (2008) had participants estimate the amount of time that a line was displayed onscreen and found that duration estimates tended to increase as the length of the line increased.…”