Stimulus familiarity influences perceived duration in prerecognition visual processing.

Abstract

Three experiments further explored the Avant, Lyman, and Antes finding that, during prerecognition processing, differences in subjects' familiarity with letters, words, and nonwords generate differences in the apparent duration of tachistoscopic flashes. The results replicate and extend the earlier findings, showing apparent duration differences with a variety of verbal stimuli over a range of tachistoscopic exposure intervals. The results also suggest that exposures of stimuli on early trials of an experiment reduce differences in preexperimental stimulus familiarity such that unfamiliar stimuli come to be processed more nearly like familiar stimuli. Familiarity acquired on early trials appears to accumulate at prerecognition levels of processing and to reduce apparent duration differences among stimuli on later trials.

Time estimation and attentional perspective

“…Although these models have been useful for guiding a substantial amount of research, the research itself is often characterized by divergent and conflicting results (see, e.g., Avant & Lyman, 1975, vs, Devane, 1974Ornstein, 1969, vs. Poynter, 1983). An interval defmed as more complex is sometimes judged longer, but on other occasions shorter, than a less complex interval.…”

“…Instead, one might seem longer or shorter than another, depending on the nature of items filling these intervals. For example, the variables of stimulus familiarity (Avant & Lyman, 1975;Thomas & Weaver, 1975), task difficulty (Burnside, 1971;Hicks, Miller, Gaes, & Bierman, 1977), and the number and arrangement of stimulus items (Adams, 1977;Buffardi, 1971;Ornstein, 1969) have all been reported to influence comparative duration estimates. The intent here is to extend this previous literature by investigating whether selective attending toward different aspects of an event's structure yields different time estimates of the same event.…”

Time judgments of musical endings: Effects of expectancies on the “filled interval effect”

“…For example, conflicting results have been observed with the variables of stimulus familiarity (cf. Avant & Lyman, 1975;Devane, 1974), stimulus arrangement (cf. Poynter, 1983;Schiffman & Bobko, 1974), and task difficulty (cf.…”

Apparent duration and numerosity as a function of melodic familiarity

“…Time intervals containing complex, unfamiliar, more numerous, or less predictable stimuli are estimated to be longer than intervals containing simpler (e.g., Block, 1978, Experiment 2;Ornstein, 1969;Schiffman & Bobko, 1974), more familiar (e.g., Avant & Lyman, 1975;von Sturmer, 1966), more predictable (e.g., Frankenhaeuser, 1959;Ornstein, 1969), or fewer stimuli (e.g., Buffardi, 1971;Fraisse, 1963;Frankenhaeuser, 1959;Ornstein, 1969;Poynter & Homa, 1983;Schiffman & Bobko, 1977).…”