Watching a real moving object expands tactile duration: The role of task-irrelevant action context for subjective time

Abstract

Although it is well established that action contexts can expand the perceived durations of action-related events, whether action contexts also impact the subjective duration of events unrelated to the action remains an open issue. Here we examined how the automatic implicit reactions induced by viewing task-irrelevant, real moving objects influence tactile duration judgments. Participants were asked to make temporal bisection judgments of a tactile event while seeing a potentially catchable swinging ball. Approaching movement induced a tactile-duration overestimation relative to lateral movement and to a static baseline, and receding movement produced an expansion similar in duration to that from approaching movement. Interestingly, the effect of approaching movement on the subjective tactile duration was greatly reduced when participants held lightweight objects in their hands, relative to a hands-free condition, whereas no difference was obtained in the tactile-duration estimates between static hands-free and static hands-occupied conditions. The results indicate that duration perception is determined by internal bodily states as well as by sensory evidence.Keywords Duration estimation . Bodily states . Embodiment . Crossmodal interaction . Temporal processing . Embodied perception Time perception in the subsecond to second ranges is susceptible to a wide range of factors (for a review,

Non-uniform transformation of subjective time during action preparation

“…In this sense, an action-related dilation of time in the present study might be somewhat surprising, because visual features of our target stimulus (white disk) was not directly associated with actions (release and repress movements of a key). Recent studies, however, indicated that action can affect perception of a stimulus even when that stimulus was irrelevant to a motor task (Jia, Shi, Zang, & Muller, 2015;Tomassini, Spinelli, Jacono, Sandini, & Morrone, 2015). For example, preparation of reaching movements to a bar modulated a contrast sensitivity to a visual stimulus (Gabor patch) totally unrelated to the movements (Tomassini et al, 2015).…”

Wearing weighted backpack dilates subjective visual duration: the role of functional linkage between weight experience and visual timing

“…But such subjective duration expansion diminished when their imitation of the facial expressions was inhibited by holding a pen between their lips ( Effron et al, 2006 ). A recent study ( Jia et al, 2015 ) has also demonstrated that possibility of stimulus–response interaction could change perceived duration of a tactile stimulus.…”

“…Not only spatial perception, time perception can also be better understood within the framework of embodiment ( Clark, 1999 ; Droit-Volet et al, 2013 ; Wittmann, 2013 ; Maniadakis et al, 2014 ). Studies have demonstrated that bodily states markedly influence time perception ( Yarrow et al, 2001 ; Droit-Volet and Gil, 2009 ; Hagura et al, 2012 ; Shi et al, 2013 ; Jia et al, 2015 ). For example, external trains of clicks and intake of drugs (e.g., amphetamine) can change bodily arousal levels, leading to distortions of perceived durations ( Maricq et al, 1981 ; Penton-Voak et al, 1996 ).…”

“…Similarly, studies have shown pictures that are more arousing are often perceived longer than low arousal ones ( Droit-Volet and Gil, 2009 ). Voluntary actions or action preparation can also adjust bodily states, affecting subjective time ( Effron et al, 2006 ; Hagura et al, 2012 ; Maniadakis et al, 2014 ; Jia et al, 2015 ). Noted, action-based bodily regulation may overwrite potential influences of affective stimuli on subjective time.…”

Experimentally induced awe does not affect implicit and explicit time perception

“…Because we were primarily interested in studying the online effects of induced awe on temporal judgments (i.e., while participants were actually engaged in watching the aweeliciting movies), we used a bisection task while participants were watching the different videos. Specifically we used a tactile bisection task (Jia, Shi, Zang, & Muller, 2015;Shi, Jia, & Muller, 2012), in which participants categorized vibrotactile stimuli as being of short or long duration. The advantage of this task is that it does not interfere with the other sensory modalities (i.e., vision and sound) that are used to elicit awe to prevent any interference.…”