Visual Movement Impairs Duration Discrimination at Short Intervals

Overview

Journal Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)

Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology

Date 2023 Jan 30

PMID 36717537

Authors

Nathercia L Torres

Sao Luis Castro

Susana Silva

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The classic advantage of audition over vision in time processing has been recently challenged by studies using continuously moving visual stimuli such as bouncing balls. Bouncing balls drive beat-based synchronisation better than static visual stimuli (flashes) and as efficiently as auditory ones (beeps). It is yet unknown how bouncing balls modulate performance in duration perception. Our previous study addressing this was inconclusive: there were no differences among bouncing balls, flashes, and beeps, but this could have been due to the fact that intervals were too long to allow sensitivity to modality (visual vs auditory). In this study, we conducted a first experiment to determine whether shorter intervals elicit cross-stimulus differences. We found that short (mean 157 ms) but not medium (326 ms) intervals made duration perception worse for bouncing balls compared with flashes and beeps. In a second experiment, we investigated whether the lower efficiency of bouncing balls was due to experimental confounds, lack of realism, or movement. We ruled out the experimental confounds and found support for the hypothesis that visual movement-be it continuous or discontinuous-impairs duration perception at short interval lengths. Therefore, unlike beat-based synchronisation, duration perception does not benefit from continuous visual movement, which may even have a detrimental effect at short intervals.

References

Barne L, Sato J, de Camargo R, Claessens P, Caetano M, Cravo A . A common representation of time across visual and auditory modalities. Neuropsychologia. 2018; 119:223-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.08.014. View

McAuley J, Jones M . Modeling effects of rhythmic context on perceived duration: a comparison of interval and entrainment approaches to short-interval timing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003; 29(6):1102-25. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.6.1102. View

Rammsayer T, Troche S . In search of the internal structure of the processes underlying interval timing in the sub-second and the second range: a confirmatory factor analysis approach. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2013; 147:68-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.004. View

Guclu B, Sevinc E, Canbeyli R . Duration discrimination by musicians and nonmusicians. Psychol Rep. 2011; 108(3):675-87. DOI: 10.2466/11.22.27.PR0.108.3.675-687. View

Grahn J, McAuley J . Neural bases of individual differences in beat perception. Neuroimage. 2009; 47(4):1894-903. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.039. View

Rammsayer T, Borter N, Troche S . Visual-auditory differences in duration discrimination of intervals in the subsecond and second range. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:1626. PMC: 4620148. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01626. View

Merchant H, Zarco W, Bartolo R, Prado L . The context of temporal processing is represented in the multidimensional relationships between timing tasks. PLoS One. 2008; 3(9):e3169. PMC: 2525837. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003169. View

van Wassenhove V . Minding time in an amodal representational space. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009; 364(1525):1815-30. PMC: 2685822. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0023. View

Stanislaw H, Todorov N . Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999; 31(1):137-49. DOI: 10.3758/bf03207704. View

10.

Rammsayer T . The effects of type of interval, sensory modality, base duration, and psychophysical task on the discrimination of brief time intervals. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014; 76(4):1185-96. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0655-x. View

11.

Rammsayer T, Pichelmann S . Visual-auditory differences in duration discrimination depend on modality-specific, sensory-automatic temporal processing: Converging evidence for the validity of the Sensory-Automatic Timing Hypothesis. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018; 71(11):2364-2377. DOI: 10.1177/1747021817741611. View

12.

Grondin S . Duration discrimination of empty and filled intervals marked by auditory and visual signals. Percept Psychophys. 1993; 54(3):383-94. DOI: 10.3758/bf03205274. View

13.

Wiener M, Matell M, Coslett H . Multiple mechanisms for temporal processing. Front Integr Neurosci. 2011; 5:31. PMC: 3136737. DOI: 10.3389/fnint.2011.00031. View

14.

Rammsayer T, Ulrich R . Elaborative rehearsal of nontemporal information interferes with temporal processing of durations in the range of seconds but not milliseconds. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011; 137(1):127-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.03.010. View

15.

Gu L, Huang Y, Wu X . Advantage of audition over vision in a perceptual timing task but not in a sensorimotor timing task. Psychol Res. 2019; 84(7):2046-2056. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-019-01204-3. View

16.

Gan L, Huang Y, Zhou L, Qian C, Wu X . Synchronization to a bouncing ball with a realistic motion trajectory. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:11974. PMC: 4493690. DOI: 10.1038/srep11974. View

17.

Ortega L, Guzman-Martinez E, Grabowecky M, Suzuki S . Audition dominates vision in duration perception irrespective of salience, attention, and temporal discriminability. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014; 76(5):1485-502. PMC: 4096074. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0663-x. View

18.

Gorea A, Kim J . Time dilates more with apparent than with physical speed. J Vis. 2015; 15(1):15.1.7. DOI: 10.1167/15.1.7. View

19.

Grondin S, Ouellette C, Macar F . Sensory effects on judgments of short time-intervals. Psychol Res. 1998; 61(4):261-8. DOI: 10.1007/s004260050030. View

20.

Grondin S . Unequal Weber fractions for the categorization of brief temporal intervals. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010; 72(5):1422-30. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.5.1422. View