Awareness of attention allocation and time estimation accuracy

Abstract

Subjects performed a psychomotoric task and gave a prospective verbal estimate of its duration. One group of subjects was then made aware of optimal division of attention between the psychomotoric task and the passage of time, and again performed the task and prospectively estimated its duration. It was found that the accuracy of the time estimation markedly improved for that group of subjects relative to a control group whose awareness of the division of attention was not raised. Implications for understanding time estimation processes are discussed.Time judgments of short intervals are generally found to be positively correlated with the objective clock time of the estimated intervals, but the correlations differ significantly from 1.0 (Hicks & Miller, 1976). Giving feedback on the accuracy of time estimation was found to decrease the absolute estimation error of short intervals (e.g., Hicks, 1976;Hicks & Miller, 1976). A different approach for reducing time estimation inaccuracy was attempted in the present study; it is based on an attentional model for prospective time estimation. Proponents of the attentional approach (e.g., Frankenhauser, 1959;Hicks, Miller, Gaes, & Bierman, 1977;Priestly, 1968) view time estimation as a direct function of the amount of attention allocated for processing the passage of time. The more attention is allocated to a cognitive processor of time, the longer duration estimates will be. This model has been validated in many experiments in the frame of a prospective paradigm in which subjects knew in advance that they would be required to estimate time (e.g., Burnside, 1971;Cahoon & Edmonds, 1980;Hicks et al., 1977;Lordahl & Berkowitz, 1975;Vroon, 1970;Zakay & Fallach, 1984; Zakay, Nitzan, & Glicksohn, 1983).The explanation suggested by the attentional model for inaccuracy in time judgments focuses on the suboptimal division of attention between the passage of time and the concurrent task performed during the target interval. It is suggested here that overestimation is a result of allocating a substantial amount of attentional resources to the passage of time, whereas underestimation results from allocating a small amount of available resources to the passage of time. It is commonly accepted that there is considerable diversity in the efficiency with which tasks may be time shared, resulting either from differences in basic time sharing ability or from differences in practice (Wickens, 1984). It also was found, however, that it is possible to train and improve time sharing skills regarding psychomotoric tasks (e.g., Gopher & Brickner, 1980 making estimators aware of the need for an optimal time sharing and division of attention in the context of a prospective time estimation, estimation accuracy would be improved. METHOD SubjectsFifty undergraduate students at Tel Aviv University participated in the experiment in partial fulfillment of a course requirement. Experimental Tasks and ProcedureThe subjects were required to disassemble a three-dimensional puzzle and to reassemble it again...

Attention and the subjective expansion of time

“…Conversely, the ratio generally decreases as a function of the amount of information processed in a distracting secondary task (e.g., Grondin & Macar, 1992;Zakay & Tsal, 1989). We agree with the traditional view (e.g., Creelman, 1962;Thomas & Weaver, 1975;Treisman, 1963) of time perception, according to which perceived duration is a function of the amount of information processed per unit of objective time.…”

“…Note that in Experiment 2, where the standards were moving and the oddball was stationary, the temporal expansion factor was only about 1.2, which is similar to the degree of expansion we find here. Lastly, the counting that the observers carried out for oddball stimuli probably worked against TSE, because a nontemporal concurrent processing task is known to decrease perceived duration, rather than increase it (e.g., Grondin & Macar, 1992;Hicks & Brundige, 1974;Hicks et al, 1976;Hülser, 1924;Katz, 1906;Macar et al, 1994;Predebon, 1996;Quasebarth, 1924;Thomas & Cantor, 1978;Underwood & Swain, 1973;Zakay, 1993;Zakay & Tsal, 1989).…”

“…Examples of the mannequin stimuli used in Experiment 7. Cantor, 1978;Underwood & Swain, 1973;Zakay, 1993;Zakay & Tsal, 1989), we reasoned that this task worked against our hypothesis and, so, was a conservative measure.…”

Directed attention prolongs the perceived duration of a brief stimulus

“…For example, in the classical studies ofKatz (1906), intervals ofabout 1.2 sec werejudged shorterwhen attention was distracted by an accompanying task (e.g., reading ofsyllables). Meanwhile, numerous studies have replicated and extended this basic finding with various dual-task paradigms (Grondin & Macar, 1992;Hülser, 1924; Macar, Grondin, & Casini, 1994;Predebon, 1996;Quasebarth, 1924;Thomas & Cantor, 1978;Underwood & Swain, 1973;Zakay, 1993;Zakay & Tsal, 1989).…”

When Plans Change: Examining How People Evaluate Timing Changes in Work Organizations

“…The opposite is true for retrospective judgments. Also, when people are cognitively engaged and isolated from temporal stimuli, time is perceived to move more quickly (Vroon, 1970;Zakay, Nitzan, & Glicksohn, 1983;Zakay & Tsal, 1989). We have all experienced this basic empirical finding: time passes faster when there are more distractions.…”