Sequential effects in time perception

Taylor, Tamsen E.; Lupker, Stephen J.

doi:10.3758/bf03194030

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Statistical quirks aside, however, it must be acknowledged that supporters of temporal learning accounts have pointed out that RT on trial n – 1 is likely a noisy approximation of temporal expectancies (Kinoshita et al, 2011; Schmidt, 2013c), although several attempts, reported by Cohen-Shikora et al (2018), to use a less noisy index (e.g., mean RT on the three most recent trials) also failed to produce consistent evidence for the temporal learning account of the PC effect. In fact, one could argue that internally constructed temporal expectancies might deviate considerably from the measured response time on one or more of the preceding trials, an argument that might find support in the observation that time perception is often prone to biases (e.g., Taylor & Lupker, 2006, 2007). The implication is that the analyses performed for Experiments 1A and 1B might not provide the best means of determining whether temporal learning is a potential contributor to the PC effect observed in those experiments.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptation to conflict frequency without contingency and temporal learning: Evidence from the picture–word interference task.

Spinelli¹,

Perry²,

Lupker³

2019

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In interference tasks (e.g., Stroop, 1935), the difference between congruent and incongruent latencies (i.e., the “congruency” effect) is larger in trial blocks containing mostly congruent trials than in trial blocks containing mostly incongruent trials (the proportion-congruent [PC] effect). Although the PC effect has typically been interpreted as reflecting adjustments in attention toward/away from the task-irrelevant dimension (i.e., a conflict-adaptation strategy), recent research has suggested alternative accounts based on the learning of either contingencies (i.e., distractor-response associations) or of temporal expectancies (i.e., the typical response speed on previous trials), accounts in which conflict adaptation plays no role. Using the picture–word interference paradigm, we report data from two PC manipulations in which contingency learning was made impossible by using nonrepeated distractors (Experiment 1A) or both nonrepeated distractors and responses (Experiment 1B). The classic PC effect emerged in both experiments. In addition, learning of temporal expectancies could not explain the present PC effects either, as results from trial-level analyses of Experiments 1A and 1B and a nonconflict version of Experiment 1B (Experiment 2) were inconsistent with the predictions of the temporal learning account of PC effects. These results suggest that conflict adaptation remains a credible explanation for PC effects.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptation to conflict frequency without contingency and temporal learning: Evidence from the picture–word interference task.

Spinelli¹,

Perry²,

Lupker³

2019

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, we opted for an alternative way to slow down colour naming in the Stroop task. As documented repeatedly across a variety of tasks (Kinoshita, Mozer & Forster, 2011;Meyer, Roelofs, & Levelt, 2003;Rastle, Kinoshita, Lupker, & Coltheart, 2003;Taylor & Lupker, 2001; see also Taylor & Lupker, 2007 for review) latencies to a given set of stimuli are faster when those stimuli are presented in the context of comparably easy stimuli than when presented in the context of comparably hard stimuli. This effect is thought to occur in order to optimally initiate responses (Kinoshita et al, 2011;cf.…”

Section: Experiments 3 -Stroop Paradigm With Colour Wordsmentioning

confidence: 96%