Luke A. Jones

When do auditory/visual differences in duration judgements occur?

Four experiments examined judgements of the duration of auditory and visual stimuli. Two used a bisection method, and two used verbal estimation. Auditory/visual differences were found when durations of auditory and visual stimuli were explicitly compared and when durations from both modalities were mixed in partition bisection. Differences in verbal estimation were also found both when people received a single modality and when they received both. In all cases, the auditory stimuli appeared longer than the visual stimuli, and the effect was greater at longer stimulus durations, consistent with a “pacemaker speed” interpretation of the effect. Results suggested that Penney, Gibbon, and Mecks (2000) “memory mixing” account of auditory/visual differences in duration judgements, while correct in some circumstances, was incomplete, and that in some cases people were basing their judgements on some preexisting temporal standard.

Double standards: memory loading in temporal reference memory.

Three experiments compared human performance on temporal generalization tasks with either one or two different, and distinct, standard durations encoded. In the first two experiments participants received presentations of two different standards at the beginning of each trial block and were instructed to encode either one or both of them. When instructed to encode one standard they then had to judge whether each of a number of comparison stimuli was or was not that standard. When instructed to encode both they were then tested using just one of the standards but the participants were unaware, at the time of encoding, which standard would later be used as a reference. No marked effect of the number of temporal standards encoded was found. In Experiment 3 participants received either one or two temporal standards and had to use both when two were presented. This manipulation produced flatter generalization gradients when two standards were encoded than when just one was, and modelling attributed this difference mainly to an increase in reference memory variability in the double-standard case. This suggests that the variability of representation of durations in temporal reference memory can be systematically increased by increasing temporal reference memory load.

More is not necessarily better: Examining the nature of the temporal reference memory component in timing

Three experiments compared the timing performance of humans on a modified temporal generalization task with 1, 3, or 5 presentations of the standard duration. In all three experiments subjects received presentations of a standard duration at the beginning of a trial block and then had to judge whether each of a number of comparison stimuli was or was not the standard. The duration of the standard changed between blocks. The three experiments varied the experimental design (between or within subjects), task difficulty (how closely the comparison stimuli were spaced around the standards), and presence or absence of feedback on performance accuracy. Number of presentations of the standard never affected the proportion of identifications of the standard when it was presented, nor other features of the temporal generalization gradients observed. The implications for the operation of reference memories within the scalar timing system were explored via models that made different assumptions about how the individual presentations of the standard were stored and used.

The role of executive functions in human prospective interval timing

Human timing is thought to be based on the output of an internal clock. Whilst the functioning of this clock is well documented, it is unclear which other cognitive resources may moderate timing. Brown (2006) and Rattat (2010) suggest that the central executive of working memory may be recruited during timing. However it seems likely that the fractionated executive component processes identified by Miyake et al. (2000) and Fisk and Sharp (2004) may differentially contribute to timing performance; further exploration of this was the aim of the present study. An interference paradigm was employed in which participants completed an interval production task, and tasks which have been shown to tap the four key executive component processes (shifting, inhibition, updating and access) under single and dual-task conditions. Comparison of single and dual-task performance indicated that timing always became more variable when concurrently performing a second task. Bidirectional interference only occurred between the interval production task and the memory updating task, implying that both tasks are competing for the same executive resource of updating. There was no evidence in the current study to suggest that switching, inhibition or access was involved in timing, however they may be recruited under more difficult task conditions.

Is the growth of subjective time in humans a linear or nonlinear function of real time

The difficulties of deciding whether subjective time grows as a linear or nonlinear function of real time are discussed, and two experiments are presented to address this question. In Experiment 1, people received a 10-s standard duration and then had to judge what proportion other durations (ranging from 1 to 10 s) were of the standard. Counting was prevented by a concurrent task. The relation between judged and actual proportions was linear. In Experiment 2, people were required to average together three tone durations (mean duration 600 ms) and to judge whether subsequently presented comparisons were or were not the average. The spacing of the tone durations had no effect on judgements, suggesting a linear underlying time scale.

Click trains and the rate of information processing: Does “speeding up” subjective time make other psychological processes run faster?

A series of experiments demonstrated that a 5-s train of clicks that have been shown in previous studies to increase the subjective duration of tones they precede (in a manner consistent with “speeding up” timing processes) could also have an effect on information-processing rate. Experiments used studies of simple and choice reaction time (Experiment 1), or mental arithmetic (Experiment 2). In general, preceding trials by clicks made response times significantly shorter than those for trials without clicks, but white noise had no effects on response times. Experiments 3 and 4 investigated the effects of clicks on performance on memory tasks, using variants of two classic experiments of cognitive psychology: Sperlings (1960) iconic memory task and Loftus, Johnson, and Shimamuras (1985) iconic masking task. In both experiments participants were able to recall or recognize significantly more information from stimuli preceded by clicks than those preceded by silence.

Are memories for duration modality specific

Four experiments examined the effects of encoding multiple standards in a temporal generalization task in the visual and auditory modalities both singly and cross-modally, using stimulus durations ranging, across different experiments, from 100 to 1,400 ms. Previous work has shown that encoding and storing multiple auditory standards of different durations resulted in systematic interference with the memory of the standard, characterized by a shift in the location of peak responding, and this result, from Ogden, Wearden, and Jones (2008), was replicated in the present Experiment 1. Experiment 2 employed the basic procedure of Ogden et al. using visual stimuli and found that encoding multiple visual standards did not lead to performance deterioration or any evidence of systematic interference between the standards. Experiments 3 and 4 examined potential cross-modal interference. When two standards of different modalities and durations were encoded and stored together there was also no evidence of interference between the two. Taken together, these results, and those of Ogden et al., suggest that, in humans, visual temporal reference memory may be more permanent than auditory reference memory and that auditory temporal information and visual temporal information do not mutually interfere in reference memory.

Good vibrations: Human interval timing in the vibrotactile modality

This article reports a detailed examination of timing in the vibrotactile modality and comparison with that of visual and auditory modalities. Three experiments investigated human timing in the vibrotactile modality. In Experiment 1, a staircase threshold procedure with a standard duration of 1,000 ms revealed a difference threshold of 160.35 ms for vibrotactile stimuli, which was significantly higher than that for auditory stimuli (103.25 ms) but not significantly lower than that obtained for visual stimuli (196.76 ms). In Experiment 2, verbal estimation revealed a significant slope difference between vibrotactile and auditory timing, but not between vibrotactile and visual timing. That is, both vibrations and lights were judged as shorter than sounds, and this comparative difference was greater at longer durations than at shorter ones. In Experiment 3, performance on a temporal generalization task showed characteristics consistent with the predications of scalar expectancy theory (SET: Gibbon, 1977) with both mean accuracy and scalar variance exhibited. The results were modelled using the modified Church and Gibbon model (MCG; derived by Wearden, 1992, from Church & Gibbon 1982). The model was found to give an excellent fit to the data, and the parameter values obtained were compared with those for visual and auditory temporal generalization. The pattern of results suggest that timing in the vibrotactile modality conforms to SET and that the internal clock speed for vibrotactile stimuli is significantly slower than that for auditory stimuli, which is logically consistent with the significant differences in difference threshold that were obtained.

The interaction between duration, velocity and repetitive auditory stimulation

Repetitive auditory stimulation (with click trains) and visual velocity signals both have intriguing effects on the subjective passage of time. Previous studies have established that prior presentation of auditory clicks increases the subjective duration of subsequent sensory input, and that faster moving stimuli are also judged to have been presented for longer (the time dilation effect). However, the effect of clicks on velocity estimation is unknown, and the nature of the time dilation effect remains ambiguous. Here were present a series of five experiments to explore these phenomena in more detail. Participants viewed a rightward moving grating which traveled at velocities ranging from 5 to 15°/s and which lasted for durations of 500 to 1500 ms. Gratings were preceded by clicks, silence or white noise. It was found that both clicks and higher velocities increased subjective duration. It was also found that the time dilation effect was a constant proportion of stimulus duration. This implies that faster velocity increases the rate of the pacemaker component of the internal clock. Conversely, clicks increased subjective velocity, but the magnitude of this effect was not proportional to actual velocity. Through considerations of these results, we conclude that clicks independently affect velocity and duration representations.

More is still not better: Testing the perturbation model of temporal reference memory across different modalities and tasks

The ability of the perturbation model (Jones & Wearden, 2003) to account for reference memory function in a visual temporal generalization task and auditory and visual reproduction tasks was examined. In all tasks the number of presentations of the standard was manipulated (1, 3, or 5), and its effect on performance was compared. In visual temporal generalization the number of presentations of the standard did not affect the number of times the standard was correctly identified, nor did it affect the overall temporal generalization gradient. In auditory reproduction there was no effect of the number of times the standard was presented on mean reproductions. In visual reproduction mean reproductions were shorter when the standard was only presented once; however, this effect was reduced when a visual cue was provided before the first presentation of the standard. Whilst the results of all experiments are best accounted for by the perturbation model there appears to be some attentional benefit to multiple presentations of the standard in visual reproduction.