Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

12-09-2018 | Original Article

The expected oddball: effects of implicit and explicit positional expectation on duration perception

Auteurs: Jordan J. Wehrman, John Wearden, Paul Sowman

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

The oddball duration effect describes how a rare stimulus amongst a string of standard stimuli is perceived to have a longer duration than the standards, even if they are of the same objective duration. Several theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon. In order to adjudicate between opposing explanations, we have borrowed three extensively studied paradigms from the variable foreperiod literature: the sequential foreperiod, temporal cueing and a skewed foreperiod distribution. This approach allowed us to examine the effects of positional expectation on perceived oddball duration, while avoiding confounds from first-order positioning of the oddball in a sequence of standards. Through these three experiments, we demonstrate a clear role of positional expectation in the lengthening of the perceived duration of an oddball. We show that this expectation effect is separable from other drivers of the oddball duration illusion.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
More accurately, the use of the first stimulus as the target increases perceived duration via the so-called debut effect, however Pariyadath and Eagleman (2007) used this to make an argument about the role of expectation in perceived duration.
 
2
A similar argument could be levelled at the Pariyadath and Eagleman (2007) study mentioned above. More generally, when trying to access the role of expectation in the oddball duration illusion, most papers do not specify the type of expectation they are discussing.
 
3
Note, it is possible for predictive coding to have some sort of ‘second-order’ effects such that the expectation of what would occur is mediated by what was previously seen, what position in the current set we are at and at what position the last oddball occurred in the prior set. But, given such a broad role, it could be difficult to disprove any theory related to predictive coding.
 
4
In brief, this involved normalising each mean RT for each binned duration in each condition by dividing by the sum of the mean RTs for each participant. Each binned duration was then multiplied by its corresponding weight, and the results were summed within each condition for each participant.
 
5
Comparing to the objective standard duration, the PSE given a 5–5 standard combination was significantly lower [mean PSE = 460 ms, t(19) = 4.03, p = .002, d = 0.90]. The PSE given a 3–5 standard combination was also significantly lower [mean PSE = 461 ms, t(19) = 5.42, p < .001, d = 1.21]. A 5–3 standard combination PSE was not significantly different than the standard duration [mean PSE = 485 ms, t(19) = 1.91, p = .143, d = 0.43], nor was the PSE of a 3–3 standard combination [mean PSE = 512 ms, t(19) = 1.29, p = .213, d = 0.29]. All p values are Holm adjusted.
 
6
Though note that in experiment one, the perceived duration of the oddball when 3 standards were presented was veridical, while in this experiment, the perceived duration of the oddball was shorter than veridical.
 
7
Compared to the objective standard duration, the PSE of the three-standard, invalid cue was significantly higher [mean PSE = 531 ms, t(19) = 3.22, p = .009, d = 0.72] and if the cue was valid the PSE was not significantly different [mean PSE = 508 ms, t(19) = 1.11, p = .280, d = 0.25]. Given a five-standard, valid or invalid cue, the PSE was significantly lower than the objective standard duration [invalid mean PSE = 458 ms, t(19) = 5.58, p < .001, d = 1.25; valid mean PSE = 472 ms, t(19) = 4.42, p < .001, d = 0.99, respectively]. All p values were Holm adjusted.
 
8
A similar pattern was also found in response times, which have been previously attributed to difficulty of decision-making in temporal judgement tasks (Balcı & Simen, 2014; Simen et al., 2011).
 
9
When something is easier to process, more information is encoded in a given amount of time. Because we then correlate the amount of information received with perceived duration, we overestimate the duration of the more efficiently processed object.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Birngruber, T., Schröter, H., Schütt, E., & Ulrich, R. (2017). Stimulus expectation prolongs rather than shortens perceived duration: Evidence from self-generated expectations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000433.CrossRef Birngruber, T., Schröter, H., Schütt, E., & Ulrich, R. (2017). Stimulus expectation prolongs rather than shortens perceived duration: Evidence from self-generated expectations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Advanced online publication. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​xhp0000433.CrossRef
go back to reference Granjon, M., Requin, J., Durup, H., & Reynard, G. (1973a). Effects of timing signal of simple reaction time with “non-aging” foreperiods. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(1), 139.CrossRef Granjon, M., Requin, J., Durup, H., & Reynard, G. (1973a). Effects of timing signal of simple reaction time with “non-aging” foreperiods. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(1), 139.CrossRef
go back to reference Linares, D., & Lopez-Moliner, J. (2016) quickpsy: An R package to fit psychometric functions for multiple groups. The R Journal, 8(2016), 122–131.CrossRef Linares, D., & Lopez-Moliner, J. (2016) quickpsy: An R package to fit psychometric functions for multiple groups. The R Journal, 8(2016), 122–131.CrossRef
go back to reference Los, S. A. (2010). Foreperiod and the sequential effect: Theory and data. In A. C. Nobre & J. T. Coull (Eds.), Attention and time (pp. 289–302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Los, S. A. (2010). Foreperiod and the sequential effect: Theory and data. In A. C. Nobre & J. T. Coull (Eds.), Attention and time (pp. 289–302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Tse, P. U., Intrilligator, J., Rivest, J., & Cavanagh, P. (2004). Attention and the subjective expansion of time. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 66(7), 1171–1189.CrossRef Tse, P. U., Intrilligator, J., Rivest, J., & Cavanagh, P. (2004). Attention and the subjective expansion of time. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 66(7), 1171–1189.CrossRef
go back to reference Tse, P. U. (2010). Attention underlies subjective temporal expansion. In A. C. Nobre & J. T. Coull (Eds.), Attention and time (pp. 137–150). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Tse, P. U. (2010). Attention underlies subjective temporal expansion. In A. C. Nobre & J. T. Coull (Eds.), Attention and time (pp. 137–150). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
The expected oddball: effects of implicit and explicit positional expectation on duration perception
Auteurs
Jordan J. Wehrman
John Wearden
Paul Sowman
Publicatiedatum
12-09-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1093-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2020

Psychological Research 3/2020 Naar de uitgave