Abstract
In time reproduction tasks, the reaction time of motor responses is intrinsically linked to the measure of perceptual timing. Decisions are based on a continuous comparison between elapsed time and a memory trace of the to-be-reproduced interval. Here, we investigate the possibility that negative reproduction errors can be explained by the tendency to prefer earlier over later response times, or whether the whole range of possible response times is shifted. In experiment 1, we directly compared point reproduction (participants indicate the exact time point of equality) and range reproduction (participants bracket an interval containing this time point). In experiment 2, participants indicated, in three separate tasks, the exact time point at which the reproduction phase was equal to the standard duration (point reproduction), the earliest (start reproduction), or the latest moment (stop reproduction) at which the exact time point of equality might have been reached. The results demonstrate that the bias towards earlier responses not only affects reproduction of the exact time point of equality. Rather, even if the decision threshold is changed in favor of late responses, they exhibit a continuous shift towards negative errors that increases with the length of the standard duration. The findings are discussed in the context of the hypothesis that systematic errors in time reproduction tasks reflect a dimension-unspecific tendency towards earlier responses caused by the psychophysical method rather than by a time-specific perceptual distortion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Block, R. A., Hancock, P. A., & Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgments: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), 134(3), 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.006.
Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004.
Droit-Volet, S. (2009). Stop using time reproduction tasks in a comparative perspective without further analyses of the role of the motor response: The example of children. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 130–148.
Eisler, H. (1976). Experiments on subjective duration 1968–1975: A collection of power function exponents. Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 1154–1171.
Eisler, H. (1981). Applicability of the parallel-clock model to duration discrimination. Perception Psychophysics, 29(3), 225–233.
Grondin, S. (2014). About the (non)scalar property for time perception. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 829, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1782-2_2.
Hellström, A. (2000). Sensation weighting in comparison and discrimination of heaviness. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 26(1), 6–17.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory. Oxford: Harper & Row.
Hinton, S. C., & Meck, W. H. (2004). Frontal–striatal circuitry activated by human peak-interval timing in the supra-seconds range. Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research, 21(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.08.005.
Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73(4), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2.
Kammers, M. P., de Vignemont, F., Verhagen, L., & Dijkerman, H. C. (2009). The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia, 47(1), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.07.028.
Kladopoulos, C. N., Brown, B. L., Hemmes, N. S., & Cabeza de Vaca, S. (1998). The start-stop procedure: Estimation of temporal intervals by human subjects. Perception and Psychophysics, 60(3), 438–450.
Lejeune, H., & Wearden, J. H. (2009). Vierordt’s The Experimental Study of the Time Sense (1868) and its legacy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 941–960.
Malapani, C., Deweer, B., & Gibbon, J. (2002). Separating storage from retrieval dysfunction of temporal memory in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(2), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902317236920.
Mioni, G., Stablum, F., McClintock, S. M., & Grondin, S. (2014). Different methods for reproducing time, different results. Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 76(3), 675–681. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0625-3.
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., & Sarkar, D. & The R Development Core Team (2013). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–111.
Pöppel, E. (1971). Oscillations as possible basis for time perception. Studium Generale (Berlin), 24(1), 85–107.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
Rakitin, B. C., Stern, Y., & Malapani, C. (2005). The effects of aging on time reproduction in delayed free-recall. Brain and Cognition, 58(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.09.006.
Riemer, M. (2015). Psychophysics and the anisotropy of time. Consciousness and Cognition, 38, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.06.007.
Riemer, M., Rhodes, D., & Wolbers, T. (2016). Systematic underreproduction of time is independent of judgment certainty. Neural Plasticity, 2016, 6890674. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6890674.
Riemer, M., Trojan, J., Kleinböhl, D., & Hölzl, R. (2012). A “view from nowhen” on time perception experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1118–1124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027073.
Ryan, L. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Erroneous knowledge of results affects decision and memory processes on timing tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 33(6), 1468–1482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.33.6.1468.
Treisman, M. (1963). Temporal discrimination and the indifference interval. Implications for a model of the “internal clock”. Psychological Monographs, 77(13), 1–31.
Ulbrich, P., Churan, J., Fink, M., & Wittmann, M. (2007). Temporal reproduction: Further evidence for two processes. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), 125(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.06.004.
Vicario, C. M. (2013). Time reproduction and numerosity interaction in the parietal cortex: Some missing links. Frontiers in Neurology, 4, 45. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2013.00045.
Vierordt, K. (1868). Der Zeitsinn nach Versuchen. Tübingen: Laupp.
Wackermann, J. (2008). Measure of time: A meeting point of psychophysics and fundamental physics. Mind and Matter, 6(1), 9–50.
Wackermann, J., & Ehm, W. (2006). The dual klepsydra model of internal time representation and time reproduction. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239(4), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.024.
Wearden, J. H., & Lejeune, H. (2008). Scalar properties in human timing: Conformity and violations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Hove), 61(4), 569–587.
Wiener, M., & Coslett, H. B. (2008). Disruption of temporal processing in a subject with probable frontotemporal dementia. Neuropsychologia, 46(7), 1927–1939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.01.021.
Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1996). The role of attention in time estimation processes. In M. A. Pastor & J. Artieda (Eds.), Time, internal clocks and movement. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.
Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1997). Temporal cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 6(1), 12–16.
Funding
This study was funded by the European Social Fonds (ESF) (Sachsen-Anhalt Wissenschaft Spitzenforschung/Synergien: AGETIME). The funding source had no direct involvement in the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Martin Riemer declares that he has no conflict of interest. Thomas Wolbers declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Riemer, M., Wolbers, T. Negative errors in time reproduction tasks. Psychological Research 84, 168–176 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0994-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0994-7