More is not necessarily better: Examining the nature of the temporal reference memory component in timing

Abstract

Three experiments compared the timing performance of humans on a modified temporal generalization task with 1, 3, or 5 presentations of the standard duration. In all three experiments subjects received presentations of a standard duration at the beginning of a trial block and then had to judge whether each of a number of comparison stimuli was or was not the standard. The duration of the standard changed between blocks. The three experiments varied the experimental design (between or within subjects), task difficulty (how closely the comparison stimuli were spaced around the standards), and presence or absence of feedback on performance accuracy. Number of presentations of the standard never affected the proportion of identifications of the standard when it was presented, nor other features of the temporal generalization gradients observed. The implications for the operation of reference memories within the scalar timing system were explored via models that made different assumptions about how the individual presentations of the standard were stored and used.

Can we use verbal estimation to dissect the internal clock? Differentiating the effects of pacemaker rate, switch latencies, and judgment processes

“…At the end of the timed interval, the switch opens, cutting the flow, and the number of accumulated pulses forms the basis for time perception. The accumulated counts may be compared with previously encoded durations to provide the basis for judgment and action (for recent discussions, see Jones & Wearden, 2003;Ogden & Jones, 2009;Ogden, Wearden & Jones, 2008).…”

Time perception is enhanced by task duration knowledge: Evidence from experienced swimmers

“…This point also suggests an important difference to put forward between temporal discrimination tasks and other classical timing tasks. Indeed, Jones and Wearden (2003) showed that varying the number of presentations of an anchor duration (one, three, or five times) did not improve temporal discrimination performance in a temporal generalisation task. However, temporal feedback quickly increases performance in quantification tasks.…”

“…However, this component has been understudied in the last few decades, as compared to other components or properties of timing models (e.g., the role of attention in the pacemaker-counter device). Nevertheless, some studies have focused on various aspects of temporal memory for time, such as the lifespan of memory traces (Gamache & Grondin, 2010); the interference between different temporal traces (Grondin, 2005) or between other task demands and memory traces (Ogden, Wearden, & Jones, 2008); the development of temporal memory (Rattat & Droit-Volet, 2005a, b, 2007; the effect of the number of presentations of a standard duration on temporal discrimination (Jones & Wearden, 2003); the influence of pharmacological substances on temporal memory (Meck, 1983); or the electroencephalographic basis of memory traces (Ng, Tobin, & Penney, 2011).…”

Timing and time perception: A review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings and theoretical directions

“…In a bisection task, transferring into memory the accumulation of a given interval would involve a multiplicative storage constant, K * , whose variability is normally distributed (L. A. Jones & Wearden, 2003). Variance in such a task may also be associated with the distribution in reference memory of each of the short (S) and the long (L) intervals to be learned (Penney, Gibbon, & Meck, 2000).…”