2009
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is subjective duration a signature of coding efficiency?

Abstract: Perceived duration is conventionally assumed to correspond with objective duration, but a growing literature suggests a more complex picture. For example, repeated stimuli appear briefer in duration than a novel stimulus of equal physical duration. We suggest that such duration illusions appear to parallel the neural phenomenon of repetition suppression, and we marshal evidence for a new hypothesis: the experience of duration is a signature of the amount of energy expended in representing a stimulus, i.e. the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
159
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 217 publications
(174 citation statements)
references
References 101 publications
(155 reference statements)
14
159
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Some suggest this duration compression is related to repetition suppression, which assumes repeated signals reduce neural responses (Grill-Spector, Henson, & Martin, 2006;Henson & Rugg, 2003). This also is in line with the predictive coding, which suggests that the brain do little when the incoming stimulus matches the internal expectation but passes prediction errors for further processing when the incoming signal deviates from the prediction (Eagleman & Pariyadath, 2009;Friston, 2005;Rao & Ballard, 1999;Shi & Burr, 2016). However, a recent study by Matthews (2015) reported that the repetition compression of subjective duration is reduced and even reversed when repetition trials become more frequent.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some suggest this duration compression is related to repetition suppression, which assumes repeated signals reduce neural responses (Grill-Spector, Henson, & Martin, 2006;Henson & Rugg, 2003). This also is in line with the predictive coding, which suggests that the brain do little when the incoming stimulus matches the internal expectation but passes prediction errors for further processing when the incoming signal deviates from the prediction (Eagleman & Pariyadath, 2009;Friston, 2005;Rao & Ballard, 1999;Shi & Burr, 2016). However, a recent study by Matthews (2015) reported that the repetition compression of subjective duration is reduced and even reversed when repetition trials become more frequent.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…One proposal for the repetition compression is coding efficiency under the framework of predictive coding (Eagleman & Pariyadath, 2009;Matthews et al, 2014), which argues repetition suppression depends on the differences between the predicted and the actual signals. The predictive coding framework (Friston, 2005, Rao & Ballard, 1999 assumes that bottom-up signals are only passed on to the next stage when the information deviates from the top-down predictions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The oddball paradigm used in Study 1 captures a specific illusion that is hypothesized to be driven by predictive coding (Eagleman & Pariyadath, 2009;Pariyadath & Eagleman, 2007;Schindel et al, 2011).…”
Section: Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The next contribution proposes a different model related to coding efficiency (Eagleman & Pariyadath 2009). The paper extends the notion of non-identity of physical and subjective time highlighted by numerous temporal illusions.…”
Section: Overview Of the Theme Issuementioning
confidence: 99%