Duration perception in crossmodally-defined intervals

Abstract

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.

Why studying intermodal duration discrimination matters

“…The stability of the Weber fraction over time reported by Mayer et al (2014) is a bit surprising considering the data reported by Grondin (1996) for intermodal intervals lasting 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, or 4 s. In this study, AV and VA intervals were used. There were 36 sessions (3 per experimental condition) lasting about 30 (at 0.125 s) to 65 min (at 4 s).…”

“…The recent data reported by Mayer et al (2014) are also interesting as they describe the discrimination levels. In the VA and AV conditions, the Weber fractions are roughly the same, and vary from 30% at 0.1 s to slightly above 20% at 0.9 s. The results are essentially the same when auditory and tactile stimuli combinations are used, with the exception that performances are generally better when the auditory marker is presented first, especially at 0.1 s (above 40% in TA).…”

“…Recently, Mayer et al (2014) conducted an investigation involving intermodal intervals lasting from 100 to 900 ms, with combinations of auditory, visual and tactile (A, V, T) stimuli. They observed that when a sound serves as the first marker, in either an AV or AT sequence, duration is perceived as longer than in conditions where a sound serves as the second marker, as in a VA or TA sequence; but reported no ordering effect when tactile and visual signals were used together (TV vs. VT).…”

Temporal averaging across multiple response options: insight into the mechanisms underlying integration

“…Furthermore, a related and well-known effect referred to as “Vierordt’s law” suggests that these patterns are even seen in healthy subjects (Vierordt 1868), albeit to a lesser degree. Specifically, when subjects are asked to make duration judgments regarding multiple intervals across different trials, shorter and longer durations tend to be under and over-estimated, respectively (Bausenhart et al 2014; Mayer et al 2014). This pattern has been observed across a variety of timing tasks and sensory modalities (for discussion see Lejeune and Wearden 2009).…”

The impact of a concurrent motor task on auditory and visual temporal discrimination tasks

“…Timing is more precise when stimuli are presented in the auditory rather than the visual modality (Grondin, 1993;Grondin, Meilleur-Wells, Ouellette, & Macar, 1998;Mayer, Di Luca, & Ernst, 2014;Rammsayer, Buttkus, & Altenmüller, 2012;Ulrich et al, 2006), and this auditory superiority might be due to the automaticity of temporal processing in audition.…”