Temporal productions in a variable environment: timing starts from stimulus identification rather than onset
- PDF / 1,213,279 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 77 Downloads / 151 Views
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Temporal productions in a variable environment: timing starts from stimulus identification rather than onset Jordan Wehrman1 Received: 4 February 2020 / Accepted: 30 September 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Timing an interval is integral in everyday life, from crossing a street or boiling an egg to playing sports and chatting with friends. In the current article, participants were asked to produce durations ranging from 500 to 1250 ms by either terminating an automatically initiated duration, or by maintaining a key press. When participants expected this production to start was manipulated using a variable foreperiod. Further, between subjects, the durations required for production were either variable or constant within a block. Together, these manipulations set up a temporally—and event—uncertain environment. When participants both initiated and terminated an interval, the uncertainty of the environment did not systematically affect productions. However, when productions were only terminated, productions were longer and given more uncertainty. While the effects of timing onset could be attributed to when a participant registers a stimulus, the effects of uncertainty with regards to what duration would be required for production indicates that participants appear to register what a stimulus is prior to initiating their timing. This finding indicates that timing may relate to when a stimulus is identified, rather than when it is first perceived. Alternatively, perhaps the onset of timing is postponed by event uncertainty.
Introduction Objectively, time marches methodically onwards. Subjectively, time cadenzas, flowing faster or slower depending on both internal and external factors. For example, filled durations are perceived to last longer than unfilled durations (Bratzke, Birngruber, Durst, & Schröter, 2017; Droit-Volet, 2008; Grondin, 1993; Rammsayer, 2010; Thomas & Brown, 1974; Wearden, Norton, Martin, & Montford-Bebb, 2007), non-repeated or rare stimuli last longer than repeated standard stimuli (Birngruber, Schröter, & Ulrich, 2014; Wehrman, 2020; Wehrman, Wearden, & Sowman, 2020), and stimuli with larger magnitudes appear to last longer than stimuli with smaller magnitudes (Cai & Wang, 2014; Droit-Volet, 2010; Rammsayer & Verner, 2014; Walsh, 2003; Wehrman, Kaplan, & Sowman, 2020; Xuan, Chen, He, & Zhang, 2009). The current article is interested in the role of expectation on temporal production. Broadly, when things are expected to occur (Fromboluti, Jones, & McAuley, 2013; Lin & Shimojo, 2017; McAuley & Fromboluti, 2014; Wehrman
et al., 2018), and what they are expected to be (Birngruber, Schröter, Schütt, & Ulrich, 2017; Matthews & Gheorghiu, 2016) have been shown to affect perceived duration. The most common methods for exploring this effect are temporal bisection and temporal comparison. However, temporal production results can add substantially to these previous findings. From a methodological standpoint, it is interesting to see how moto
Data Loading...
