Literature DB >> 16945856

When do auditory/visual differences in duration judgements occur?

J H Wearden1, N P M Todd, L A Jones.   

Abstract

Four experiments examined judgements of the duration of auditory and visual stimuli. Two used a bisection method, and two used verbal estimation. Auditory/visual differences were found when durations of auditory and visual stimuli were explicitly compared and when durations from both modalities were mixed in partition bisection. Differences in verbal estimation were also found both when people received a single modality and when they received both. In all cases, the auditory stimuli appeared longer than the visual stimuli, and the effect was greater at longer stimulus durations, consistent with a "pacemaker speed" interpretation of the effect. Results suggested that Penney, Gibbon, and Meck's (2000) "memory mixing" account of auditory/visual differences in duration judgements, while correct in some circumstances, was incomplete, and that in some cases people were basing their judgements on some preexisting temporal standard.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16945856     DOI: 10.1080/17470210500314729

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.143


  26 in total

1.  Auditory temporal modulation of the visual Ternus effect: the influence of time interval.

Authors:  Zhuanghua Shi; Lihan Chen; Hermann J Müller
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-05-16       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  [Recording cervical and ocular vestibular evoked myogenic potentials: part 1: anatomy, physiology, methods and normal findings].

Authors:  L E Walther; K Hörmann; O Pfaar
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 3.  Dedicated and intrinsic models of time perception.

Authors:  Richard B Ivry; John E Schlerf
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-06-06       Impact factor: 20.229

4.  Short-term memory for auditory and visual durations: evidence for selective interference effects.

Authors:  Anne-Claire Rattat; Delphine Picard
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2011-03-04

5.  Combined effects of motor response, sensory modality, and stimulus intensity on temporal reproduction.

Authors:  Allegra Indraccolo; Charles Spence; Argiro Vatakis; Vanessa Harrar
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Auditory memory distortion for spoken prose.

Authors:  Joanna L Hutchison; Timothy L Hubbard; Blaise Ferrandino; Ryan Brigante; Jamie M Wright; Bart Rypma
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Action enhances auditory but not visual temporal sensitivity.

Authors:  Lucica Iordanescu; Marcia Grabowecky; Satoru Suzuki
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-02

8.  Audition dominates vision in duration perception irrespective of salience, attention, and temporal discriminability.

Authors:  Laura Ortega; Emmanuel Guzman-Martinez; Marcia Grabowecky; Satoru Suzuki
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Interference between auditory and visual duration judgements suggests a common code for time.

Authors:  Pavlos C Filippopoulos; Pamela Hallworth; Sukye Lee; John H Wearden
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-11-22

10.  Predictive coding of multisensory timing.

Authors:  Zhuanghua Shi; David Burr
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2016-02-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.