Duration judgments are mediated by the similarity with the temporal context.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 12 2022
30 12 2022
Historique:
received:
28
03
2022
accepted:
26
12
2022
entrez:
30
12
2022
pubmed:
31
12
2022
medline:
4
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
When we try to assess the duration of an event, we are often affected by external information. Studies on multiple timing have found that simultaneous timing information can produce an averaging or central tendency effect, where the perceived duration of the elements tends to be biased towards a general average. We wanted to assess how this effect induced by simultaneous distractors could depend on the temporal similarity between stimuli. We used a duration judgment task in which participants (n = 22) had to compare the duration of two identical targets (1 s) accompanied by simultaneous distractors of different durations (0.3, 0.7, 1.5 or 3 s). We found a central tendency effect, where duration judgments of the target were systematically biased towards the duration of the distractors that accompanied them. We put forward a model based on the concept of duration-channels that can explain the central tendency effect with only one estimated parameter. This parameter modulates the rate of decay of this effect as distractors duration become more different than the duration of the target.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36585445
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-27168-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-27168-w
pmc: PMC9803681
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
22575Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Psychol Bull. 2016 Aug;142(8):865-907
pubmed: 27196725
Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2016 Apr;8:131-139
pubmed: 28018946
Vision Res. 2017 Jan;130:67-75
pubmed: 27876514
Elife. 2019 Mar 27;8:
pubmed: 30916643
PLoS Biol. 2015 Sep 17;13(9):e1002262
pubmed: 26378440
J Neurosci Methods. 2007 May 15;162(1-2):8-13
pubmed: 17254636
Percept Psychophys. 2001 Nov;63(8):1293-313
pubmed: 11800458
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019 Jan;192:87-93
pubmed: 30458315
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Feb;23(1):317-23
pubmed: 26082283
Exp Brain Res. 2013 Sep;230(1):87-98
pubmed: 23864044
J Vis. 2008 Feb 29;8(2):14.1-8
pubmed: 18318640
Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2016 Apr;8:60-66
pubmed: 27175440
Front Psychol. 2012 Nov 05;3:459
pubmed: 23162507
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Apr;50(5):791-9
pubmed: 22285796
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020 May;82(4):2147-2164
pubmed: 31898065
Nature. 1970 Oct 3;228(5266):37-9
pubmed: 5456209
Nat Neurosci. 2001 Jul;4(7):739-44
pubmed: 11426231
Vision Res. 1977;17(3):367-74
pubmed: 878322
Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 23;9:1250
pubmed: 30083122
J Vis. 2006 Dec 15;6(12):1421-30
pubmed: 17209745
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 4;14(3):e0213163
pubmed: 30830930
Acta Psychol (Amst). 1990 Nov;75(2):103-21
pubmed: 2073027
Iperception. 2020 Nov 26;11(6):2041669520973223
pubmed: 33294152
Psychol Rev. 1957 May;64(3):153-81
pubmed: 13441853
Percept Mot Skills. 1986 Feb;62(1):35-8
pubmed: 3960681
Nat Neurosci. 2010 Aug;13(8):1020-6
pubmed: 20581842
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 22;279(1729):690-8
pubmed: 21831897
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 25;9(6):e100803
pubmed: 24963624