Time perception and word recognition: An elaboration of the time-criterion account

Abstract

Past research suggests that a time criterion guides responding in speeded word recognition tasks. The time-criterion account has been challenged, however, because it incorrectly predicts equivalent latencies for stimuli of differing difficulty when those stimuli are presented in the same trial block. By requiring participants to perform a lexical decision or naming task but to respond only once they had estimated that 1 sec had elapsed, we investigated the idea that stimulus difficulty effects in response latency might be at least partially due to time perception processes. Consistent with this idea, the participants produced shorter estimates of 1-sec intervals when processing easier stimuli (i.e., time seemed to pass faster when easier stimuli were processed). The implication is that understanding speeded word recognition performance will require looking beyond processes involved in acquiring information about the presented stimulus and examining more general response processes.

Sequential effects in time perception

“…Hence, any impact of stimulus difficulty on time perception should show up in any task in which responding is based on timing operations (i.e., according to the time criterion account, in all speeded response tasks). In fact, the time perception literature contains considerable evidence that people's time perception processes are affected by the difficulty of the stimuli being processed and that the direction of these effects is consistent with Taylor and Lupker's (2006) recent results. For example, Warm and McCray (1969) presented words that varied in frequency and length for exactly 1 sec.…”

“…Recently, Taylor and Lupker (2006) provided evidence supporting the idea that time perception processes can play a role in speeded response tasks. In Taylor and Lupker's (2006) experiments, participants were asked to name stimuli but to delay their naming responses until the presented stimulus had been on the computer screen for exactly 1 sec.…”

“…The easy stimuli were 30 high-frequency words (mean frequency 122.271; HAL norms from elexicon database, Balota et al, 2002). The difficult stimuli were 30 pronounceable nonwords (stimuli available at psychonomic.org/archive; see archived materials for Taylor & Lupker, 2006). The stimuli were presented in a different random order for each participant.…”

“…The standard stimulus difficulty effects seen in speeded naming (i.e., frequency, lexicality) also appeared in this internal-timing task. Taylor and Lupker's (2006) explanation for these results is based on the idea that if participants are using a time criterion, they must monitor the passage of time in order to Sequential effects in time perception TAMSEN E. TAYLOR AND STEPHEN J. LUPKER University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada Taylor and Lupker (2001) reported that in a naming task, stimuli were named more rapidly when preceded by an easy-to-name stimulus than when preceded by a difficult-to-name stimulus (sequential effects). The goal of the present research was to investigate whether sequential effects could be explained in terms of time perception processes (within the context of Lupker, Brown, and Colombo's [1997] time criterion account).…”

“…In Taylor and Lupker's (2006) experiments, participants were asked to name stimuli but to delay their naming responses until the presented stimulus had been on the computer screen for exactly 1 sec. The standard stimulus difficulty effects seen in speeded naming (i.e., frequency, lexicality) also appeared in this internal-timing task.…”