Method matters: Diverging patterns in online measures of temporal binding

IF 2 3区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

Consciousness and Cognition Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-19 DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2026.104022

Crystal A. Silver , Benjamin W. Tatler , Ramakrishna Chakravarthi , Bert Timmermans

{"title":"Method matters: Diverging patterns in online measures of temporal binding","authors":"Crystal A. Silver , Benjamin W. Tatler , Ramakrishna Chakravarthi , Bert Timmermans","doi":"10.1016/j.concog.2026.104022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Temporal Binding (TB) refers to the subjective compression of time between an action and its outcome. While TB has been demonstrated across various paradigms, questions remain about its methodological reliability, particularly in online settings where technical control is limited. The present study examined whether two common interval judgement methods, estimation and replication, yield comparable TB effects when implemented online and whether either method is differentially sensitive to social contextual framing.</div><div>In Experiment 1, participants judged action-effect intervals using estimation or replication, across action-reaction and observation conditions. Results revealed that the two methods produced different and often opposing patterns of results across action-effect intervals.</div><div>Experiment 2 introduced a minimal social manipulation in which participants were led to believe that a previous participant generated interval outcomes. Again, method-specific patterns emerged, depending on different action-effect intervals.</div><div>These findings raise concerns about the robustness of TB effects as measured in online environments. The observed divergences across methods suggest that interval judgement paradigms may be highly sensitive to procedural and contextual factors. We suggest that TB effects obtained through online interval estimation or replication should be interpreted with caution, as the presence or absence of a TB effect may be due to the specific method used or the presented action-effect intervals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51358,"journal":{"name":"Consciousness and Cognition","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 104022"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Consciousness and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810026000309","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Temporal Binding (TB) refers to the subjective compression of time between an action and its outcome. While TB has been demonstrated across various paradigms, questions remain about its methodological reliability, particularly in online settings where technical control is limited. The present study examined whether two common interval judgement methods, estimation and replication, yield comparable TB effects when implemented online and whether either method is differentially sensitive to social contextual framing.

In Experiment 1, participants judged action-effect intervals using estimation or replication, across action-reaction and observation conditions. Results revealed that the two methods produced different and often opposing patterns of results across action-effect intervals.

Experiment 2 introduced a minimal social manipulation in which participants were led to believe that a previous participant generated interval outcomes. Again, method-specific patterns emerged, depending on different action-effect intervals.

These findings raise concerns about the robustness of TB effects as measured in online environments. The observed divergences across methods suggest that interval judgement paradigms may be highly sensitive to procedural and contextual factors. We suggest that TB effects obtained through online interval estimation or replication should be interpreted with caution, as the presence or absence of a TB effect may be due to the specific method used or the presented action-effect intervals.

查看原文本刊更多论文

方法问题：时间绑定在线测量的不同模式。

时间约束（Temporal Binding， TB）是指一个行为与其结果之间的主观时间压缩。虽然结核病已在各种范例中得到证明，但其方法的可靠性仍然存在问题，特别是在技术控制有限的在线环境中。本研究检验了两种常见的间隔判断方法——估计和复制——在在线实施时是否产生可比较的结核病效果，以及这两种方法对社会语境框架是否有不同的敏感性。在实验1中，被试在动作-反应和观察条件下使用估计或复制来判断动作-效果间隔。结果表明，这两种方法产生了不同的，往往是相反的模式的结果跨越行动-效果区间。实验2引入了一个最小的社会操纵，参与者被引导相信前一个参与者产生了间隔结果。同样，根据不同的作用-效果间隔，出现了方法特定模式。这些发现引起了人们对在线环境中衡量结核病影响的稳健性的关注。观察到的不同方法之间的差异表明，间隔判断范式可能对程序和上下文因素高度敏感。我们建议应谨慎解释通过在线间隔估计或复制获得的结核病效应，因为结核病效应的存在或不存在可能是由于所使用的特定方法或所呈现的作用-效应间隔。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Consciousness and Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

8.30%

发文量

123

期刊介绍： Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal provides a forum for a natural-science approach to the issues of consciousness, voluntary control, and self. The journal features empirical research (in the form of regular articles and short reports) and theoretical articles. Integrative theoretical and critical literature reviews, and tutorial reviews are also published. The journal aims to be both scientifically rigorous and open to novel contributions.