Intersensory comparisons of temporal judgments.

Goldstone, Sanford; Boardman, William K.; Lhamon, William T.

doi:10.1037/h0040745

Cited by 79 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 12 publications

(7 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second feature of the present study was the inclusion of both auditory and visual timing signals within the same experimental session to better examine the effects of attention on duration classification. The observation that sounds are judged longer than visual stimuli of the same objective duration is a robust finding in the timing literature (e.g., Behar & Bevan, 1961;Goldstone et al, 1959;Goldstone & Lhamon, 1972, 1974Lustig & Meck, 2001;Penney et al, 1998Penney et al, , 2000Wearden et al, 1998) that has been interpreted to reflect greater attentional allocation to the auditory versus visual signal (Penney et al, 1998(Penney et al, , 2000. Thus, the inclusion of a dual modality bisection task permitted further investigation of the role of attention on temporal processing in schizophrenia, as impaired attention should produce a greater auditory/visual timing difference compared to that observed for nonpsychiatric participants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…In a previous study of mixed-modality temporal bisection, the offspring of individuals with schizophrenia exhibited an increased difference in their temporal judgments between auditory and visual signals compared with both controls and individuals identified as high-risk for the development of affective disorders . Based on these findings and reports of auditory/ visual differences observed using a variety of patient populations (Ehrensing et al, 1970;Goldstone & Kirkham, 1968;Goldstone & Lhamon, 1972;Lustig & Meck, 2001) and temporal discrimination tasks (Goldstone, 1968;Goldstone & Goldfarb, 1964;Goldstone et al, 1959), it was predicted that individuals with schizophrenia would judge the auditory stimuli as longer than visual stimuli of the same objective duration, and that this auditory/visual difference would be greater than that observed for the non-psychiatric participants. Because this is the first study to date to apply the SKE-MM model to bisection data from individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, the model was applied as part of an exploratory analysis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal processing dysfunction in schizophrenia

Carroll

Boggs

O’Donnell

et al. 2008

Brain and Cognition

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Schizophrenia may be associated with a fundamental disturbance in the temporal coordination of information processing in the brain, leading to classic symptoms of schizophrenia such as thought disorder and disorganized and contextually inappropriate behavior. Despite the growing interest and centrality of time-dependent conceptualizations of the pathophysiology of schizophrenia, there remains a paucity of research directly examining overt timing performance in the disorder. Accordingly, the present study investigated timing in schizophrenia using a well-established task of time perception. Twenty-three individuals with schizophrenia and 22 non-psychiatric control participants completed a temporal bisection task, which required participants to make temporal judgments about auditory and visually presented durations ranging from 300 to 600 ms. Both schizophrenia and control groups displayed greater visual compared to auditory timing variability, with no difference between groups in the visual modality. However, individuals with schizophrenia exhibited less temporal precision than controls in the perception of auditory durations. These findings correlated with parameter estimates obtained from a quantitative model of time estimation, and provide evidence of a fundamental deficit in temporal auditory precision in schizophrenia.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal processing dysfunction in schizophrenia

Carroll

Boggs

O’Donnell

et al. 2008

Brain and Cognition

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In duration perception, some intriguing differences across sensory modalities have been reported: given the same objective duration, an auditory event is perceived as being longer than that of a visual event, whereas often times, audition is more precise than vision in temporal perception (Goldstone et al 1959;Goldstone & Goldfarb 1963, 1964aWearden et al 1998;Penney et al 2000;Penney & Tourret 2005). Two kinds of explanation for the differences in audition and vision have been put forward within the prominent clock models (Treisman 1963;Allan 1979;Gibbon et al 1984).…”

Section: An Amodal Representational Space For Time Perception?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Minding time in an amodal representational space

Wassenhove

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

156

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How long did it take you to read this sentence? Chances are your response is a ball park estimate and its value depends on how fast you have scanned the text, how prepared you have been for this question, perhaps your mood or how much attention you have paid to these words. Time perception is here addressed in three sections. The first section summarizes theoretical difficulties in time perception research, specifically those pertaining to the representation of time and temporal processing. The second section reviews non-exhaustively temporal effects in multisensory perception. Sensory modalities interact in temporal judgement tasks, suggesting that (i) at some level of sensory analysis, the temporal properties across senses can be integrated in building a time percept and (ii) the representational format across senses is compatible for establishing such a percept. In the last section, a two-step analysis of temporal properties is sketched out. In the first step, it is proposed that temporal properties are automatically encoded at early stages of sensory analysis, thus providing the raw material for the building of a time percept; in the second step, time representations become available to perception through attentional gating of the raw temporal representations and via re-encoding into abstract representations.

show abstract

“…Thus, Goldstone et al (1959), employing lights and sounds as stimuli, demonstrated that visual stimuli were overestimated relative to their subjects' internal conception of one clock second more frequently than were auditory stimuli and that, on average, auditory stimuli were judged to be longer than visual stimuli of equal physical duration. The task for the subjects in that experiment consisted of saying "more" or "less," depending on whether the subject thought the variable interval was greater or less than the standard, respectively.…”

Section: Presentation Modality and Time Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several researchers (e.g. Behar & Bevan, 1961;Goldstone, Boardman, & Lhamon, 1959;Goldstone & Goldfarb, 1964a, 1964b have reported differential effects of auditory and visual stimuli on temporal judgments, whereas other investigators have failed to demonstrate any modality differences on duration judgments (e.g., Hawkes, Bailey, & Warm, 1961;Hirsch, Bilger, & Deatherage, 1956;Warm, Stutz, & Vassolo, 1975) or have found inconsistent differences (e.g., Tanner, Patton, & Atkinson, 1965). In those studies that have found modality effects on time judgments (e.g., Goldstone and his associates), the investigators have generally reported an underestimation of intervals defined by visual stimuli, relative to auditory intervals of equal physical duration.…”

Section: Presentation Modality and Time Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of temporal coding: Auditory-visual comparisons

Schab

Crowder

1989

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments were designed to decide whether temporal information is coded more accurately for intervals defined by auditory events or for those defined by visual events. In the first experiment, the irregular-list technique was used, in which a short list of items was presented, the items all separated by different interstimulus intervals. Following presentation, the subject was given three items from the list, in their correct serial order, and was asked to judge the relative interstimulus intervals. Performance was indistinguishable whether the items were presented auditorily or visually. In the second experiment, two unfilled intervals were defined by three nonverbal signals in either the auditory or the visual modality. After delays of 0, 9, or 18 sec (the latter two filled with distractor activity), the subjects were directed to make a verbal estimate of the length of one ofthe two intervals, which ranged from 1 to 4 sec and from 10 to 13 sec. Again, performance was not dependent on the modality of the time markers. The results of Experiment 3, which was procedurally similar to Experiment 2 but with filled rather than empty intervals, showed significant modality differences in one measure only. Within the range of intervals employed in the present study, our results provide, at best, only modest support for theories that predict more accurate temporal coding in memory for auditory, rather than visual, stimulus presentation.The recency effect in memory captures one of the most conspicuous laws of memory and metamemory: we remember well what just happened and less well what happened in the more remote past. Currently, one prominent theoretical approach to recency is founded on the proposition that items from the end of a series have a privileged status because of their discriminability along the temporal dimension (Baddeley & Hitch, 1977;Hitch, 1985;Murdock, 1960). Glenberg (1987;Glenberg & Swanson, 1986) has set out a particularly well-formulated version of this idea. His temporal distinctiveness theory deals successfully with several aspects of recency including, notably, the long-term recency effect of Bjork and Whitten (1974) and its dependence on the relative spacing of list items to each other and the time lapse prior to recall.Briefly, the central proposition of Glenberg's (1987;Glenberg & Swanson, 1986) retrieval-based distinctiveness theory is that encoding of new information includes a description of the time of occurrence of the new information. Retrieval proceeds by means of temporally defined search sets when more efficacious retrieval cues (i.e., semantic cues) are not available. The size of a given search set is a function of how long ago the information was presented: temporally more distant events are asThis research was supported by NSF Grant BNS 92-19661 to Robert G. Crowder. We wish to thank Arthur M. Glenberg, Alice F. Healy, Alee Hellstrom, and an anonymous reviewer for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Correspondence regarding this article should ...

show abstract

Intersensory comparisons of temporal judgments.

Cited by 79 publications

References 12 publications

Temporal processing dysfunction in schizophrenia

Temporal processing dysfunction in schizophrenia

Minding time in an amodal representational space

Accuracy of temporal coding: Auditory-visual comparisons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About