Abstract
The attention/distraction models of prospective time estimation predict either a negative relationship or an independence between duration estimates and the number of stimulus events presented during the time period, but not a positive relationship. Two experiments examined this relationship under prospective conditions. Lists of words were presented during a 60-sec time period at either a fast or a slow rate. Subjects either passively viewed the words or actively responded by performing either a graphemic or a semantic classification task on each word. To measure subjective duration, the method of magnitude estimation was used in Experiment 1 and the method of reproduction was used in Experiment 2. Time estimates were independent of the number of presented words in the passive viewing condition, and negatively related in the classification task conditions. Furthermore, the two classification tasks had similar effects on time estimates. These findings are consistent with the attentional models of prospective timing, and they question the robustness of earlier findings of a positive relationship between time estimates of moderately long intervals and the number of presented stimuli under conditions of minimal processing of the interval events.
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. 333–363). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 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: Klüwer.
Bueno, M. B. (1992). Testing models of time estimation. In F. Macar, V. Pouthas, & W. J. Friedman (Eds.),Time, action and cognition (pp. 173–176). Dordrecht: Klüwer.
Hicks, R. E., Miller, G. W., Gaes, G., &Bierman, K. (1977). Concurrent processing demands and the experience of time-in-passing.American Journal of Psychology,90, 431–446.
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.
McClain, L. (1983). Interval estimation: Effect of processing demands on prospective and retrospective reports.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 185–189.
Predebon, J. (1988). Retrospective time judgments and clock duration.Perceptual & Motor Skills,66, 19–24.
Predebon, J. (in press). The effects of active and passive processing of interval events on prospective and retrospective time estimates.Acta Psychologica.
Thomas, E. A. C., &Weaver, W. B. (1975). Cognitive processing and time perception.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 363–367.
Vroon, P. A. (1970). Effects of presented and processed information on duration experience.Acta Psychologica,34, 115–121.
Zakay, D. (1993). Time estimation methods: Do they influence prospective duration estimates?Perception,22, 91–101.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by an Australian Research Council grant—Institutional Grants Scheme.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Predebon, J. The relationship between the number of presented stimuli and prospective duration estimates: The effect of concurrent task activity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3, 376–379 (1996). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210764
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210764