Literature DB >> 19370453

Good vibrations: human interval timing in the vibrotactile modality.

Luke A Jones1, Ellen Poliakoff, Jill Wells.   

Abstract

This article reports a detailed examination of timing in the vibrotactile modality and comparison with that of visual and auditory modalities. Three experiments investigated human timing in the vibrotactile modality. In Experiment 1, a staircase threshold procedure with a standard duration of 1,000 ms revealed a difference threshold of 160.35 ms for vibrotactile stimuli, which was significantly higher than that for auditory stimuli (103.25 ms) but not significantly lower than that obtained for visual stimuli (196.76 ms). In Experiment 2, verbal estimation revealed a significant slope difference between vibrotactile and auditory timing, but not between vibrotactile and visual timing. That is, both vibrations and lights were judged as shorter than sounds, and this comparative difference was greater at longer durations than at shorter ones. In Experiment 3, performance on a temporal generalization task showed characteristics consistent with the predications of scalar expectancy theory (SET: Gibbon, 1977) with both mean accuracy and scalar variance exhibited. The results were modelled using the modified Church and Gibbon model (MCG; derived by Wearden, 1992, from Church & Gibbon 1982). The model was found to give an excellent fit to the data, and the parameter values obtained were compared with those for visual and auditory temporal generalization. The pattern of results suggest that timing in the vibrotactile modality conforms to SET and that the internal clock speed for vibrotactile stimuli is significantly slower than that for auditory stimuli, which is logically consistent with the significant differences in difference threshold that were obtained.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19370453     DOI: 10.1080/17470210902782200

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


  15 in total

Review 1.  Audiotactile interactions in temporal perception.

Authors:  Valeria Occelli; Charles Spence; Massimiliano Zampini
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-06

2.  Perceptual timing precision with vibrotactile, auditory, and multisensory stimuli.

Authors:  Mercedes B Villalonga; Rachel F Sussman; Robert Sekuler
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-03-26       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Discrimination is not impaired when more cortical space between two electro-tactile markers increases perceived duration.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Kuroda; Simon Grondin
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Multisensory temporal processing in early deaf.

Authors:  Simon Whitton; Jung Min Kim; Alexandra N Scurry; Stephanie Otto; Xiaowei Zhuang; Dietmar Cordes; Fang Jiang
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 3.054

5.  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

6.  Stimulus repetition and the perception of time: the effects of prior exposure on temporal discrimination, judgment, and production.

Authors:  William J Matthews
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-09       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Perception of odors linked to precise timing in the olfactory system.

Authors:  Michelle R Rebello; Thomas S McTavish; David C Willhite; Shaina M Short; Gordon M Shepherd; Justus V Verhagen
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 8.029

8.  Reducing bias in auditory duration reproduction by integrating the reproduced signal.

Authors:  Zhuanghua Shi; Stephanie Ganzenmüller; Hermann J Müller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Do changes in the pace of events affect one-off judgments of duration?

Authors:  Hannah M Darlow; Alexandra S Dylman; Ana I Gheorghiu; William J Matthews
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Further Evidence That the Effects of Repetition on Subjective Time Depend on Repetition Probability.

Authors:  William J Skylark; Ana I Gheorghiu
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-11-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.