Abstract
The role of attention allocation policy control in prospective duration judgments was tested in two experiments. In the first experiment, it was demonstrated that prospective duration judgments of same clock durations are longer when timing is treated as a primary task than when it is treated as a secondary task, regardless of the difficulty of the nontemporal task filling the to-be-judged interval. In the second experiment, this finding was replicated. Additionally, it was demonstrated that when prospective timing is not preassigned a specific priority, duration judgments are longer than those obtained under secondary-task conditions, but shorter than those obtained under primary-task conditions. It was also revealed that when attention is distracted from timing, prospective duration judgments become shorter than when attention is not distracted. These findings support the notion that prospective timing creates a dual-task condition in which magnitude of duration judgments reflects the amount of attentional resources allocated for temporal information processing.
Article PDF
References
Block, R. A. (1989). Experiencing and remembering time: Affordances, context and cognition. In I. Levin & D. Zakay (Eds.),Time and human cognition, A life span perspective (pp. 333–364). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Block, R. A. (1992). Prospective and retrospective duration judgment: The role of information processing and memory. In F. Macar, V. Pouthas, & W. J. Friedman (Eds.),Time, action and cognition (pp. 141–152). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Block, R. A., &Zakay, D. (1997). Prospective and retrospective duration judgments: A meta-analytic review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 184–197.
Brown, S. W. (1985). Time perception and attention: The effects of prospective versus retrospective paradigms and task demands on perceived duration.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 115–124.
Brown, S.W. (1997). Attentional resources in timing: Interference effects in concurrent temporal and nontemporal working memory tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,59, 1118–1140.
Brown, S. W., &Stubbs, D. A. (1988). The psychophysics of retrospective and prospective timing.Perception,17, 297–310.
Dyer, F. N. (1973). The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes.Memory & Cognition,1, 106–120.
Gopher, D., &Donchin, E. (1986). Workload—An examination of the concept. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.),Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 41–49). New York: Wiley.
Grondin, S., &Macar, F. (1992). Dividing attention between temporal and nontemporal tasks: A performance operating characteristic—POC—analysis. In F. Macar, V. Pouthas, & W. J. Friedman (Eds.),Time, action and cognition: Towards bridging the gap (pp. 119–128). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hicks, R. E., Miller, G. W., &Kinsbourne, M. (1976). Prospective and retrospective judgments of time as a function of amount of information processed.American Journal of Psychology,89, 719–730.
Macar, F., Grondin, S., &Casini, L. (1994). Controlled attention sharing influences time estimation.Memory & Cognition,22, 673–686.
McCleod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin,103, 163–203.
Michon, J. A. (1985). The complete time experiencer. In J. A. Michon & J. L. Jackson (Eds.),Time, mind and behavior (pp. 20–52). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Predebon, J. (1996). The relationship between the number of presented stimuli and prospective duration estimates: The effect of concurrent task activity.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 376–379.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 643–662.
Thomas, E. A. C., &Weaver, W. B. (1975). Cognitive processing and time perception.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 363–367.
Underwood, G., &Swain, R. A. (1973). Selectivity of attention and the perception of duration.Perception,2, 101–105.
Wickens, C. D. (1992).Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Woodworth, R. S., &Schlosberg, H. (1965).Experimental psychology (rev. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Zakay, D. (1989). Subjective time and attentional resource allocation: An integrated model of time estimation. In I. Levin & D. Zakay (Eds.),Time and human cognition: A life span perspective (pp. 365–398). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Zakay, D. (1990). The evasive art of subjective time measurement: Some methodological dilemmas. In R. A. Block (Ed.),Cognitive models of psychological time (pp. 59–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zakay, D. (1992). The role of attention in children’s time perception.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,54, 355–371.
Zakay, D. (1993). Relative and absolute duration judgments under prospective and retrospective paradigms.Perception & Psychophysics,54, 656–664.
Zakay, D., &Block, R. A. (1996). The role of attention in time estimation processes. In M. A. Pastor & J. Artieda (Eds.),Time, internal clocks and movement (pp. 143–164). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Zakay, D.,Block, R. A., &Tsal, Y. (in press). Prospective duration estimation and performance. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.),Attention and performance XVI. Boston: MIT Press.
Zakay, D., Tsal, Y., Moses, M., &Shahar, I. (1994). The role of segmentation in prospective time estimates.Memory & Cognition,22, 344–351.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author wishes to thank R. A. Block and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Preparation of this manuscript was supported by a BSF (United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation) grant.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zakay, D. Attention allocation policy influences prospective timing. Psychon Bull Rev 5, 114–118 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209465
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209465