Duration discrimination of empty time intervals marked by intermodal pulses

Rousseau, Robert; Poirier, Jocelyn; Lemyre, Louise

doi:10.3758/bf03205907

Cited by 51 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The only significant main effect was for duration [F(2,44) = 3.69, P < .05]. This finding is consistent with the results of Experiments 1-2 and with those reported by Rousseau et al (1983) for AV intervals. None of the interactions were significant.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The finding that duration discrimination is affected by marker order has been previously observed by Rousseau et al (1983) for intervals of 925 and 1,075 msec. In that study, the duration of VA intervals was generally found to be easier to discriminate than was the duration of AV intervals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…Indeed, the literature on human duration discrimination offers theoretical explanations based on the assumption that there is a central, single timer whose variability is said to be the main source ofdiscrimination errors (Allan & Kristofferson, 1974;Creelman, 1962;Divenyi & Danner, 1977;Ivry, 1993;Keele & Ivry, 1991;Killeen & Weiss, 1987;Treisman, 1963). However, the temporal judgments are much more difficult when intervals are intermodal instead of intramodal (Collyer, 1974;Fraisse, 1952;Grondin & Metthe, 1993;Grondin & Rousseau, 1991;Rousseau, Poirier, & Lemyre, 1983). The present experiments describe some of the effects of intermodal markers on duration discrimination.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Markers’ influence on the duration discrimination of intermodal intervals

Grondin

Ivry

Franz

et al. 1996

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of sensory signal characteristics on the duration discrimination of intermodal intervals was investigated in three experiments. Temporal intervals were marked by either the successive presentation of a visual then auditory signal (VA), or by the successive presentation of an auditory then visual signal (AV). The results indicated that (1) VA intervals are generally easier to discriminate than are AV intervals, but this effect depends on the range of duration studied; (2) AV intervals are perceived as longer than VA intervals for durations ranging from 250 to 750 msec; (3) the intensity of the visual markers for both AV and VA intervals does not affect the discrimination; and (4) the perceived duration of an intermodal interval is influenced by the length of the first and second markers. The results are mainly interpreted in terms of (1) a sensory trace left by visual and auditory signals and (2) the detection of these signals.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

mentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Markers’ influence on the duration discrimination of intermodal intervals

Grondin

Ivry

Franz

et al. 1996

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Admittedly, bimodal intervals accessing a central clock more "directly" would lead to optimal performance. Surprisingly, in duration-discrimination tasks, performance levels obtained under bimodal conditions have been shown to be much lower than those obtained with empty unimodal, auditory, or visual time intervals (Fraisse, 1952;Grondin & Rousseau, 1991;Hocherman & Ben-Dov, 1979;Rousseau, Poirier, & Lemyre, 1983). At first view, such findings can be interpreted as detrimental to the notion of a central clock concept.…”

mentioning

confidence: 70%

Stop—reaction time and the internal clock

Rousseau

1996

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a stop-reaction-time (stop-RT) task, a subject is presented with a regular, isochronous sequence of brief signals separated by a constant time interval, or stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). His/her task is to press a response key as fast as possible when the sequence stops. As the sequence Unfolds, an internal representation of the SOAduration builds up. Stop-RT is assumed to be triggered when an internal clock, operating as an "alarm clock," reaches a time criterion. Criterion setting is contingent upon variability in the SONs internal representation. In Experiment lA, stop-RT was measured for isochronous sequences ofbrieftones, light flashes, and also sequences of tones and flashes presented in regular alternation (tone-light-tone ...). Stop-RT was a linear function of SOA duration (ranging from 250 to 1,000msec), regardless of modality, supporting a "central-clock" hypothesis. On the other hand, taken together, the results of Experiments lA, 1B, 2, and 3 suggest that no internal representation of the bimodal (tone-light) SOA of alternating sequences builds up. Indeed, an alternating sequence is physically equivalent to two interlaced isochronous subsequences, one auditory and one visual. So, two internal representations, one for the auditory (tone-tone) and one for the visual (light-light) SOA, could build up, and two time criteria running "in parallel" could thus support stop-RT. To provide a critical test of parallel timing, stop-RT was measured for bimodal 5:3 polyrhythms formed by the superposition of auditory and visual isochronous sequences that had different SOAdurations (Experiment 4). Parallel timing accounted for a large proportion of variance in polyrhythmic stop-RT data. Overall findings can be accounted for by assuming a functional architecture of an internal clock in which pulses emitted by a central pacemaker are available in parallel with two modalityspecific switch-accumulator "timing modules."

show abstract

“…Sensory latencies were found to affect duration judgments (Grondin & Rousseau, 1991;Rousseau, Poirier, & Lemyre, 1983;Grondin, Ivry, Franz, Perreault, & Metthè, 1996). Grondin and Rousseau (1991) found that when a brief beep marked the onset of an interval and a brief light flash marked the offset, the interval was perceived to be longer than when the onset was marked by a light flash and the offset by a beep.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duration perception in crossmodally-defined intervals

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How humans perform duration judgments with multisensory stimuli is an ongoing debate. Here, we investigated how sub-second duration judgments are achieved by asking participants to compare the duration of a continuous sound to the duration of an empty interval in which onset and offset were marked by signals of different modalities using all combinations of visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. The pattern of perceived durations across five stimulus durations (ranging from 100 ms to 900 ms) follows the Vierordt Law. Furthermore, intervals with a sound as onset (audio-visual, audio-tactile) are perceived longer than intervals with a sound as offset. No modality ordering effect is found for visualtactile intervals. To infer whether a single modality-independent or multiple modalitydependent time-keeping mechanisms exist we tested whether perceived duration follows a summative or a multiplicative distortion pattern by fitting a model to all modality combinations and durations. The results confirm that perceived duration depends on sensory latency (summative distortion). Instead, we did not find evidence for multiplicative distortions. The results of the model and the behavioural data support the concept of a single time-keeping mechanism that allows for judgments of durations marked by multisensory stimuli.

show abstract

Duration discrimination of empty time intervals marked by intermodal pulses

Cited by 51 publications

References 24 publications

Markers’ influence on the duration discrimination of intermodal intervals

Markers’ influence on the duration discrimination of intermodal intervals

Stop—reaction time and the internal clock

Duration perception in crossmodally-defined intervals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About