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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A between-subjects design was chosen for the manipulation of event expectation because obtaining consistent data across all conditions in a single subject (a) would require excessive time, and (b) could be confusing in cases where participants switched from a set to a variable target production.
Note, in this experiment, the RTs from the presentation of the number to the initiation of the production are also examined. In terms of RTs, participants should show the standard RT effects of the variable foreperiod and multiple possible choices.
Target duration was included to test for possible effects that increase or decrease as the target duration gets longer. If present, these could be indicative of a multiplicative effect of a given factor.
But see (Wehrman, 2020) who did not find a different onset of auditory or visual oddballs in a simultaneity judgment task.
References
Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1970). Time uncertainty, number of alternatives and particular signal-response pair as determinants of choice reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 33, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(70)90120-4.
Alegria, J., & Delhaye-Rembaux, M. (1975). Sequential effects of foreperiod duration and conditional probability of the signal in a choice reaction time task. Acta Psychologica, 39(5), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(75)90024-4.
Birngruber, T., Schröter, H., Schütt, E., & Ulrich, R. (2017). Stimulus expectation prolongs rather than shortens perceived duration: Evidence from self-generated expectations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000433.
Birngruber, T., Schröter, H., & Ulrich, R. (2014). Duration perception of visual and auditory oddball stimuli: Does judgment task modulate the temporal oddball effect? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 76(3), 814–828.
Bratzke, D., Birngruber, T., Durst, M., & Schröter, H. (2017). Filled and empty motor reproductions of filled and empty intervals: Is there also a filled—Reproduction illusion? Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 79(7), 2143–2152. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1370-1.
Brown, S. W. (1997). Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in concurrent temporal and nontemporal working memory tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 59(7), 1118–1140. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205526.
Cai, Z. G., & Wang, R. (2014). Numerical magnitude affects temporal memories but not time encoding. PLoS One, 9(1), e83159.
Cotti, J., Rohenkohl, G., Stokes, M., Nobre, A. C., & Coull, J. T. (2011). Functionally dissociating temporal and motor components of response preparation in left intraparietal sulcus. Neuroimage, 54(2), 1221–1230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.038.
DeCarlo, L. T. J. J. O. M. P. (2012). On a signal detection approach to m-alternative forced choice with bias, with maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches to estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(3), 196–207.
Droit-Volet, S. (2008). A further investigation of the filled-duration illusion with a comparison between children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34(3), 400.
Droit-Volet, S. (2010). Speeding up a master clock common to time, number and length? Behavioural Processes, 85(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.06.017.
Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Now you see it, now you don’t: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42(6), 790–796.
Fromboluti, E. K., Jones, K. B., & McAuley, J. D. (2013). Temporal preparation contributes to the overestimation of duration of ‘oddball’ events. In Frontiers in Human Neuroscience Conference Abstract: 14th Rhythm Production and Perception Workshop Birmingham. https://doi.org/10.3389/conf.fnhum.2013.214.00013.
Grondin, S. (1993). Duration discrimination of empty and filled intervals marked by auditory and visual signals. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 54(3), 383–394.
Grondin, S., Ouellet, B., & Roussel, M. E. (2004). Benefits and limits of explicit counting for discriminating temporal intervals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 58(1), 1.
Grondin, S., & Rammsayer, T. (2003). Variable foreperiods and temporal discrimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 56(4), 731–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000611.
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70.
Jones, L. A., Allely, C. S., & Wearden, J. H. (2011). Click trains and the rate of information processing: Does “speeding up” subjective time make other psychological processes run faster? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.502580.
Karlin, L., & Kestenbaum, R. (1968). Effects of number of alternatives on the psychological refractory period. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640746808400145.
Keele, S. W. (1973). Attention and human performance. Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Kim, E., & McAuley, J. D. (2013). Effects of pitch distance and likelihood on the perceived duration of deviant auditory events. Attention, Perception and Psychophyics., 75(7), 1547–1558.
Kinoshita, S., Mills, L., & Norris, D. (2018). The semantic Stroop effect is controlled by endogenous attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Learning, Memory and Cognition, 44(11), 1730–1742.
Kinoshita, S., & Norris, D. (2010). Masked priming effect reflects evidence accumulated by the prime. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(1), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902957174.
Lin, Y. J., & Shimojo, S. (2017). Triple dissociation of duration perception regulating mechanisms: Top-down attention is inherent. PLoS One, 12(8), e0182639.
Los, S. A. (2010). Foreperiod and the sequential effect: Theory and data. In A. C. Nobre & J. T. Coull (Eds.), Attention and time (pp. 289–302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Los, S. A. (2013). The role of response inhibition in temporal preparation: Evidence from a go/no-go task. Cognition, 129(2), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.013.
Los, S. A., & van den Heuvel, C. E. (2001). Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation during reaction time foreperiods. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 370–386.
Matthews, W. J., & Gheorghiu, A. I. (2016). Repetition, expectation, and the perception of time. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 8, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.02.019.
McAuley, J. D., & Fromboluti, E. K. (2014). Attentional entrainment and perceived event duration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 369(1658), 20130401.
Mills, L., Kinoshita, S., & Norris, D. J. (2019). No negative priming effect in the manual Stroop task. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1764. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01764.
Mioni, G., Stablum, F., McClintock, S. M., & Grondin, S. (2014). Different methods for reproducing time, different results. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 76(3), 675–681. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0625-3.
Mo, S. S., & George, E. J. (1977). Foreperiod effect on time estimation and simple reaction time. Acta Psychologica, 41(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(77)90010-5.
Naccache, L., Blandin, E., & Dehaene, S. (2002). Unconscious masked priming depends on temporal attention. Psychological Science, 13(5), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00474.
Nobre, A. C. (2001). Orienting attention to instants in time. Neuropsychologia, 39(12), 1317–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00120-8.
Nobre, A., Correa, A., & Coull, J. (2007). The hazards of time. Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 17(4), 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2007.07.006.
Nobre, K., & Coull, J. T. (2010). Attention and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(1), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193821.
Penton-Voak, I. S., Edwards, H., Percival, A., & Wearden, J. H. (1996). Speeding up an internal clock in humans? Effects of click trains on subjective duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22(3), 307.
Rammsayer, T. H. (2010). Differences in duration discrimination of filled and empty auditory intervals as a function of base duration. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72(6), 1591–1600.
Rammsayer, T. H., & Verner, M. (2014). The effect of nontemporal stimulus size on perceived duration as assessed by the method of reproduction. Journal of Vision, 14(5), 17. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.5.17.
Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9(5), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00067.
Seifried, T., Ulrich, R., Bausenhart, K. M., Rolke, B., & Osman, A. (2010). Temporal preparation decreases perceptual latency: Evidence from a clock paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(12), 2432–2451. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.485354.
Steinborn, M. B., Rolke, B., Bratzke, D., & Ulrich, R. (2008). Sequential effects within a short foreperiod context: Evidence for the conditioning account of temporal preperation. Acta Psychologica, 129, 297–307.
Thomas, E. C., & Brown, I. (1974). Time perception and the filled-duration illusion. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 16(3), 449–458.
Thomaschke, R., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). Response specific temporal expectancy: Evidence from a variable foreperiod paradigm. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 73(7), 2309–2322. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0179-6.
Vallesi, A., & Shallice, T. (2007). Developmental dissociations of preparation over time: Deconstructing the variable foreperiod phenomena. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1377–1388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1377.
Vallesi, A., Shallice, T., & Walsh, V. (2007). Role of the prefrontal cortex in the foreperiod effect: TMS evidence for dual mechanisms in temporal preparation. Cerebral Cortex, 17(2), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhj163.
Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1997). Decision and response in dual-task interference. Cognitive Psychology, 33(3), 266–307. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0662.
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(11), 483–488.
Wearden, J. (2016). SET and human timing. The psychology of time perception. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Wearden, J., Norton, R., Martin, S., & Montford-Bebb, O. (2007). Internal clock processes and the filled-duration illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(3), 716.
Wehrman, J. (2020). The simultaneous oddball: Oddball presentation does not affect simultaneity judgments. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 82, 1654–1668. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01866-6.
Wehrman, J. J., Kaplan, D. M., & Sowman, P. F. (2020). Local context effects in the magnitude-duration illusion: Size but not numerical value sequentially alters perceived duration. Acta Psychologica, 204, 103016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103016.
Wehrman, J. J., Wearden, J., & Sowman, P. (2020). The expected oddball: effects of implicit and explicit positional expectation on duration perception. Psychological Research, 84, 713–727.
Woodrow, H. (1914). The measurement of attention. The Psychological Monographs, 17(5), i-158. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093087.
Xuan, B., Chen, X.-C., He, S., & Zhang, D.-R. (2009). Numerical magnitude modulates temporal comparison: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1269, 135–142.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Non-significant ANOVA Tables
Appendix: Non-significant ANOVA Tables
Experiment 1
RTs
Condition | F value | P value | η 2p |
|---|---|---|---|
Duration Produced | (1,38) = 0.869 | 0.459 | 0.02 |
Duration varied by x Current foreperiod | (1,38) = 0.149 | 0.701 | < 0.01 |
Duration varied by × Prior foreperiod | (1,38) = 2.20 | 0.147 | 0.05 |
Duration produced × Current foreperiod | (3, 114) = 1.04 | 0.389 (GG) | 0.03 |
Duration produced × Prior foreperiod | (3,114) = 0.288 | 0.806 (GG) | 0.01 |
Duration varied by × Duration × Current | (3,114) = 0.233 | 0.833 (GG) | 0.01 |
Duration varied by × Duration × Prior | (3,114) = 0.690 | 0.540 (GG) | 0.02 |
Current × Prior × Duration | (3,114) = 0.690 | 0.560 | 0.01 |
Current × Prior × Duration × Duration varied by | (3,114) = 2.11 | 0.102 | 0.05 |
Productions
Condition | F value | P value | η 2p |
|---|---|---|---|
Duration varied by | (1,38) = 0.105 | 0.748 | 0.03 |
Current foreperiod | (1,38) = 0.252 | 0.618 | 0.07 |
Prior foreperiod | (1,38) = 0.545 | 0.465 | 0.01 |
Duration varied by × Current foreperiod | (1,38) = 1.33 | 0.257 | 0.03 |
Duration varied by × Prior foreperiod | (1,38) = 0.041 | 0.842 | < 0.01 |
Duration varied by × Duration produced | (3,114) = 0.621 | 0.524 (GG) | 0.02 |
Current × Prior foreperiods | (1,38) = 0.774 | 0.384 | 0.02 |
Duration produced × Current foreperiod | (3, 114) = 0.580 | 0.629 | 0.01 |
Duration produced × Prior foreperiod | (3,114) = 0.438 | 0.640 (GG) | 0.02 |
Duration varied by × Current × Prior | (1,38) = 0.688 | 0.412 | 0.04 |
Duration varied by × Duration × Current | (3,114) = 1.62 | 0.189 | 0.01 |
Current × Prior × Duration | (3,114) = 0.179 | 0.872 (GG) | < 0.01 |
Current × Prior × Duration × Duration varied by | (3,114) = 0.663 | 0.554 (GG) | 0.02 |
CVs
Condition | F value | P value | η 2p |
|---|---|---|---|
Duration produced | (3,114) = 2.57 | 0.078 (GG) | 0.06 |
Current foreperiod | (1,38) = 2.09 | 0.147 | 0.05 |
Prior foreperiod | (1,38) = 1.57 | 0.217 | 0.04 |
Duration varied by × Current foreperiod | (1,38) = 1.24 | 0.272 | 0.03 |
Duration varied by × Prior foreperiod | (1,38) = 0.815 | 0.372 | 0.02 |
Duration produced × Current foreperiod | (3, 114) = 0.960 | 0.395 (GG) | 0.02 |
Duration produced × Prior foreperiod | (3,114) = 0.361 | 0.781 | 0.01 |
Duration varied by × Current × Prior | (1,38) = 1.43 | 0.239 | 0.04 |
Duration varied by × Duration × Current | (3,114) = 0.101 | 0.922 (GG) | < 0.01 |
Duration varied by × Duration × Prior | (3,114) = 0.460 | 0.711 | 0.01 |
Current × Prior × Duration | (3,114) = 0.974 | 0.408 | 0.03 |
Current × Prior × Duration x Duration varied by | (3,114) = 0.665 | 0.576 | 0.02 |
Experiment 2
Productions
Condition | F value | P value | η 2p |
|---|---|---|---|
Duration varied by | (1,38) = 0.353 | 0.556 | 0.01 |
Duration varied by × Duration | (3,114) = 0.382 | 0.696 (GG) | 0.01 |
Duration produced × Current foreperiod | (3, 114) = 1.29 | 0.292 (GG) | 0.03 |
Duration produced × Prior foreperiod | (3,114) = 1.02 | 0.358 (GG) | 0.03 |
Duration varied by × Current × Prior | (1,38) = 0.094 | 0.761 | 0.02 |
Duration varied by × Duration × Current | (3,114) = 1.02 | 0.368 (GG) | 0.03 |
Duration varied by × Prior × × Duration | (3,114) = 0.722 | 0.477 (GG) | 0.02 |
Current × Prior × Duration | (3,114) = 0.553 | 0.562 (GG) | 0.01 |
Current × Prior × Duration × Duration varied by | (3,114) = 0.276 | 0.740 (GG) | 0.01 |
CVs
Condition | F value | P value | η 2p |
|---|---|---|---|
Duration produced | (3,114) = 1.98 | 0.131 (GG) | 0.05 |
Current foreperiod | (1,38) = 0.101 | 0.752 | < 0.01 |
Prior foreperiod | (1,38) = 2.90 | 0.097 | 0.07 |
Duration varied by × Current foreperiod | (1,38) = 0.803 | 0.376 | 0.02 |
Duration varied by × Prior foreperiod | (1,38) = 2.86 | 0.099 | 0.07 |
Duration varied by × Duration produced | (3,114) = 2.22 | 0.100 (GG) | 0.06 |
Current × Prior foreperiods | (1,38) = 0.149 | 0.702 | < 0.01 |
Duration produced × Current foreperiod | (3, 114) = 1.08 | 0.354 (GG) | 0.03 |
Duration produced × Prior foreperiod | (3,114) = 1.52 | 0.221 (GG) | 0.04 |
Duration varied by × Current × Prior | (1,38) = 1.87 | 0.179 | 0.05 |
Duration varied by × Duration × Current | (3,114) = 1.28 | 0.286 | 0.03 |
Duration varied by × Duration × Prior | (3,114) = 0.653 | 0.545 (GG) | 0.02 |
Current × Prior × Duration | (3,114) = 0.640 | 0.591 | 0.02 |
Current × Prior × Duration × Duration varied by | (3,114) = 0.406 | 0.749 | 0.01 |
Comparison
Productions
Condition | F value | P value | η 2p |
|---|---|---|---|
Experiment × × Duration produced | (3,228) = 1.21 | 0.522 (GG) | 0.02 |
Duration varied by × Experiment × Prior | (1,76) = 1.63 | 0.206 | 0.02 |
Varied by × Experiment × Duration | (3, 228) = 0.325 | 0.723 (GG) | < 0.01 |
Experiment × Current × Duration | (3,228) = 1.41 | 0.246 (GG) | 0.02 |
Experiment × Prior × Duration | (3,228) = 0.925 | 0.407 (GG) | 0.01 |
Varied by × Exp × Prior × Current | (1,76) = 0.034 | 0.854 | <0.01 |
Varied by × Exp × Current × Duration | (3,228) = 1.71 | 0.175 (GG) | 0.02 |
Varied by × Exp × Prior × Duration | (3,228) = 1.25 | 0.290 (GG) | 0.02 |
Exp × Current × Prior × Duration | (3,228) = 0.210 | 0.832 (GG) | < 0.01 |
Varied by × Exp × Current × Prior × Duration | (3,228) = 0.201 | 0.839 (GG) | < 0.01 |
CVs
Condition | F value | P value | η 2p |
|---|---|---|---|
Experiment × Duration produced | (3,228) = 0.553 | 0.553 | 0.01 |
Experiment × Current | (1,76) = 0.005 | 0.942 | < 0.01 |
Experiment × Prior | (1,76) = 3.91 | 0.052 | 0.05 |
Varied by × Experiment × Current | (1, 76) = 1.34 | 0.250 | 0.02 |
Varied by × Experiment × Prior | (1,76) = 1.92 | 0.170 | 0.02 |
Varied by × Experiment × Duration | (3, 228) = 2.60 | 0.053 | 0.03 |
Experiment × Current × Prior | (1,76) = 1.98 | 0.164 | 0.03 |
Experiment × Current × Duration | (3,228) = 0.959 | 0.399 (GG) | 0.01 |
Experiment × Prior × Duration | (3,228) = 1.76 | 0.166 (GG) | 0.02 |
Varied by × Exp × Prior × Current | (1,76) = 3.16 | 0.080 | 0.04 |
Varied by × Exp × Current × Duration | (3,228) = 1.31 | 0.275 (GG) | 0.02 |
Varied by × Exp × Prior × Duration | (3,228) = 0.346 | 0.752 (GG) | < 0.01 |
Exp × Current × Prior × Duration | (3,228) = 0.319 | 0.795 (GG) | < 0.01 |
Varied by × Exp × Current × Prior × Duration | (3,228) = 0.632 | 0.582 (GG) | 0.01 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wehrman, J. Temporal productions in a variable environment: timing starts from stimulus identification rather than onset. Psychological Research 85, 2792–2807 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01430-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01430-0