The time-order error and its relatives: Mirrors of cognitive processes in comparing.

Hellström, Andreas

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.35

Cited by 233 publications

(306 citation statements)

References 126 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

279

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There is considerable evidence in the literature, however, that presentation order of temporal stimuli influences responding (e.g., Allan, 1977Allan, , 1979Allan & Gibbon, 1994;Hellström, 1985;Jamieson & Petrusic, 1975). Figure 4 presents the psychometric functions, averaged over subjects, separately for each referent presentation order, SL and LS.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal bisection with trial referents

Allan

Gerhardt

2001

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is general agreement among the quantitative models for time (see Allan, 1998) that mean perceived time ( μ t ) is a power function of clock time with an exponent close to 1.0,and that variability in perceived time (s t ) is proportional to mean perceived time,The proportionalityconstant g is known as the Weber fraction, and the proportionality relation is often referred to as scalar variability. This scalar property between the standard deviation and the mean results in distributions of perceived time that superpose when the temporal axis is normalized with respect to the mean of the distribution. This superposition in relative time reflects a re-scaling in time, a scale-invariant error distribution for perceived time. Many psychophysical procedures have been developed for the study of time perception (see Allan, 1979Allan, , 1998. One relatively new procedure is temporal bisection. In the prototypic temporal bisection task, two referents, one short (S ) and the other long (L), are explicitly identified either by familiarizing the subject with the referents at the beginning of a block of trials (e.g., Allan, 1999;Wearden, 1991;Wearden & Ferrara, 1995Wearden, Rogers, & Thomas, 1997) or periodically throughout a block of trials (e.g., Allan & Gibbon, 1991;Penney, Allan, Meck, & Gibbon, 1998). On probe trials, a temporal interval t, S £ t £ L, is presented, and the subject is required to indicate whether t is more similar to S (R S ) or to L (R L ). Temporal bisection yields a psychometric function relating the proportion of long responses, P(R L ), to probe duration t. The value of t at which R S and R L occur with equal frequency, P(R L ) 5 0.5, is often referred to as the bisection point (T 1/2 ). One interpretation of T 1/2 is that it is the value of t that is equally confusable with S and L. For bisection, the scalar property predicts superposition of psychometric functions for all L-to-S ratios when plotted against t normalized by the bisection point (i.e., t / T 1/2 ).A number of psychophysical models for temporal bisection have been proposed. These models differ with regard to the source of the scalar variability and the nature of the decision rule for categorizing t as R L or R S . In his now classic paper on temporal bisection, derived the bisection function for a similarity ratio decision rule. For this rule, the decision to respond R S or R L is made by comparing the similarity of the perceived value of t with memories of the two referents, S and L. This comparison is based on a ratio of the similarity of t to S relative to the similarity of t to L. If that ratio is less than a criterion b, the response is R L . Gibbon combined the similarity ratio rule with two sources for scalar variability, perception or memory. In the "referent known exactly model" (RKE), he assumed no variability in the memory for the referents and placed scalar variability in the perception of the probes. In contrast, in the "stimulusThe preparation of this paper was supported by a grant to L.G.A. from the Natural Sciences ...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal bisection with trial referents

Allan

Gerhardt

2001

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Any bias towards perceiving the first stimulus as persisting longer than the second probably represents a time order error (Hellstroem, 1985) although this has not been tested explicitly here. Such a bias is controlled for in the saccadic chronostasis procedure by the inclusion of a constant fixation condition and cannot be responsible for the illusion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action, arousal, and subjective time

Yarrow

Haggard

Rothwell

2004

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: AbstractSaccadic chronostasis refers to the subjective temporal lengthening of the first visual stimulus perceived after an eye movement. It has been quantified using a duration discrimination task. Most models of human duration discrimination hypothesise an internal clock. These models could explain chronostasis as a transient increase in internal clock speed due to arousal following a saccade, leading to temporal overestimation. Two experiments are described which addressed this hypothesis by parametrically varying the duration of the stimuli that are being judged.Changes in internal clock speed predict chronostasis effects proportional to

show abstract

“…Indeed, it is almost harder to find an experimental manipulation that does not affect the interval timing PSE than one that does. Of particular concern here, the order of two judged intervals is well known to affect relative judgements about duration (the so called "time order error"; see Hellstroem, 1985, for review) and additional substantial position-dependent biases emerge for short trains of >2 stimuli (e.g. Nakajima, Hoopen, & Van der Wilk, 1991;Rose & Summers, 1995).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Humans don’t time subsecond intervals like a stopwatch.

Narkiewicz¹,

Lambrechts²,

Eichelbaum³

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. breaks. The decrement in performance we observed far exceeded the stopwatch prediction, and also exceeded the simulated predictions of a modified stopwatch with a slowing pacemaker. The data thus favour either a counter that cannot be paused during sub-second durations or alternative models of sub-second interval duration discrimination which do not posit a count-based metric for time. We discuss several possible strategies which participants might have implemented in order to apply such clocks in the split-interval task. Permanent repository link

show abstract

The time-order error and its relatives: Mirrors of cognitive processes in comparing.

Cited by 233 publications

References 126 publications

Temporal bisection with trial referents

Temporal bisection with trial referents

Action, arousal, and subjective time

Humans don’t time subsecond intervals like a stopwatch.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About