Effect of caffeine on prospective and retrospective duration judgements

Abstract

The effects of caffeine on prospective and retrospective duration judgements were evaluated in a double-blind placebo-controlled experiment. After taking either 200 mg caffeine or a placebo, participants touched a 17-sided polygon for 15 s. Then they verbally estimated the number of angles and the duration. Participants in the prospective group were told in advance they would be making a duration estimate, whereas those in the retrospective group were not told. Caffeine reduced duration estimates in the prospective condition but not in the retrospective condition. The effect of caffeine on very long duration comparisons (the past year compared with a year at one-half and one-quarter of one's age) was also evaluated, but none was found. The findings do not support the hypothesis that caffeine affects duration experience by increasing the internal clock rate as a result of its dopamine D(2) agonist properties. The hypothesis that caffeine produces its effect by enhancing memory was considered and rejected. The most parsimonious explanation is that caffeine increased arousal level, which led to a narrowing of the focus of attention to the most salient task.

Effects of caffeine on prospective duration judgements of various intervals depend on task difficulty

“…Men showed no significant effect of caffeine on duration estimates. However, the method that Botella et al used complicates the interpretation of their findings (Gruber and Block, 2003). Gruber and Block (2003) found that 200 mg of caffeine decreased prospective duration judgements when participants performed an active informationprocessing task, but it did not affect judgements in the retrospective paradigm (in which a person is not aware during a duration that time estimation is relevant and important).…”

Dissociations between motor timing, motor coordination, and time perception after the administration of alcohol or caffeine

“…The discrepancy between Botella et al and the present findings cannot be readily attributed to differences in the sex of the participants, since our sample was also predominantly female. Although caution is needed when considering an outcome that is gender-specific, taskspecific, and dose-specific, the discrepancy between studies might again reflect differences in target interval-10 s in the case of Botella et al It may be noteworthy that Gruber and Block (2003) found effects of caffeine on estimates of a similar time interval, 15 s. Further studies of caffeine's effects on intervals substantially longer than ours would clearly be useful. Gruber and Block (2003) also reported that their effects of caffeine on timing cannot be explained easily by recourse to a single timer, since caffeine only affected performance when estimates were requested prospectively, not when requested retrospectively.…”

“…Although caution is needed when considering an outcome that is gender-specific, taskspecific, and dose-specific, the discrepancy between studies might again reflect differences in target interval-10 s in the case of Botella et al It may be noteworthy that Gruber and Block (2003) found effects of caffeine on estimates of a similar time interval, 15 s. Further studies of caffeine's effects on intervals substantially longer than ours would clearly be useful. Gruber and Block (2003) also reported that their effects of caffeine on timing cannot be explained easily by recourse to a single timer, since caffeine only affected performance when estimates were requested prospectively, not when requested retrospectively. Relatedly, in the present series of experiments, the selectivity of caffeine's effects for reaction time performance rather than for time production or discrimination seems inconsistent with the idea that time estimation and reaction time are based on a single (or, at least, common) oscillator (e.g., Treisman et al 1992).…”

Ilusões temporais: um estudo sobre percepção de tempo em função de contingências de reforçamento e punição, a partir do relato verbal

“…Mesmo sendo este procedimento amplamente utilizado nas investigações sobre percepção de tempo, há muitos anos (Gruber & Block, 2003;Hancock, 1993;Hicks et al, 1976;Miller et al, 1978; Vierordt, 1868 citado por Lejeune & Wearden, 2009), há diversas críticas quanto a sua precisão e validade enquanto método experimental. Desde Watson (1913) a introspecção, entendida como julgamento/classificação verbal que um participante emite sobre estados internos do seu corpo, já era criticada como método experimental impreciso.…”

“…Um importante procedimento no campo de estudo da percepção de tempo é a divisão das situações de pesquisa em prospectivas ou retrospectivas ( Ades, 2002;Block, Hancook & Zakay, 2000;Gruber & Block, 2003;Hicks, 1992;Wearden, 2005;Wearden, 2008;Zakay & Block, 2004). Tal divisão, já era proposta por William James em seu clássico texto de 1890, Em termos práticos a proposição de James é aplicada hoje da seguinte forma.…”