Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 443–453 | Cite as

Preferred rates of repetitive tapping and categorical time production

  • Charles E. Collyer
  • Hilary A. Broadbent
  • Russell M. Church


In a constrained finger-tapping task, in which a subject attempts to match the rate of tapping responses to the rate of a pacer stimulus, interresponse interval (IRI) was a nonlinear function of interstimulus interval (ISI), in agreement with the results of Collyer, Broadbent, and Church (1992). In an unconstrained task, the subjects were not given an ISI to match, but were instructed to tap at their preferred rate, one that seemed not too fast or too slow for comfortable production. The distribution of preferred IRIs was bimodal rather than unimodal, with modes at 272 and 450 msec. Preferred IRIs also tended to become shorter over successive sessions. Time intervals that were preferred in the unconstrained task tended to be intervals that were overproduced (IRI > ISI) when they were used as ISIs in the constrained task. A multiple-oscillator model of timing developed by Church and Broadbent (1990) was used to simulate the two tasks. The nonlinearity in constrained tapping, termed theoscillator signature, and the bimodal distribution in unconstrained tapping were both exhibited by the model. The nature of the experimental results and the success of the simulation in capturing them both provide further support for a multiple-oscillator view of timing.


  1. Anderson, J. A., Silverstein, J. W, Ritz, S. A., &Jones, R. S. (1977). Distinctive features, categorical perception, and probability learning. Some applications of a neural modelPsychological Review,84, 413–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Church, R. M., &Broadbent, H. A. (1990), Alternative representations of tune, number, and rate.Cognition,37, 55–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Church, R. M., &Broadbent, H. A. (1991). A connectionist model of timing. In M. L. Commons, S Grossberg, & J. E. R. Staddon,Quantitative models of behavior: Neural networks and conditioning (pp. 225–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Collyer, C E (1985) Comparing strong and weak models by fitting them to computer-generated data.Perception &. Psychophysical38, 476–481.Google Scholar
  5. Collyer, C. E., Broadbent, H. A., &.Church, R M, (1990, June)Preferred rates of repetitive tapping ore not Strongly determined by physical dynamics Paper presented at the American Psychological Society, Dallas.Google Scholar
  6. Collyer, C E., Broadbent, H. A., &Church, R M. (1992) Categorical time production Evidence for discrete timing in motor control.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 134–144Google Scholar
  7. Gallktel, C R. (1990).The organization of learning, Cambridge: MU Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gibbon, J., Church, R M, &Meck, W. H (1984) Scalar timing in memory In J. Gibbon & L. G. Allan (Eds.),Timing and time perception (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 423, pp 52–77). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  9. Maksik, Y (1991) Simpler, faster, more reliable photosensor circuits.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,23, 283–287.Google Scholar
  10. Tukey, J W (1977).Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Velleman, P F., &Hoaglin, D C (1981).Applications, basics, and computing of exploratory data analysis. Boston Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  12. Wing, A. M. (1980). The long and short of tuning in response sequences. In G. E. Stelmach & J Requin (Eds.),Tutorials m motor behavior (pp. 469–486). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wing, A M., &Kiustofferson, A. B. (1973). The timing of inter-response intervals.Perception & Psychophysical13, 455–460Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles E. Collyer
    • 1
  • Hilary A. Broadbent
    • 2
  • Russell M. Church
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Rhode IslandKingston
  2. 2.Brown UniversityProvidence

Personalised recommendations