{"title":"听觉和视觉刺激持续时间的判断","authors":"J. Wearden, L. Jones","doi":"10.1163/22134468-BJA10008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nStudies of judgements of the durations of filled auditory and visual stimuli were reviewed, and some previously unpublished data were analysed. Data supported several conclusions. Firstly, auditory stimuli have longer subjective durations than visual ones, with visual stimuli commonly being judged as having 80–90% of the duration of auditory ones. Secondly, the effect was multiplicative, with the auditory/visual difference increasing as the intervals became longer. Only a small number of exceptions to both these conclusions were found. Thirdly, differences in variability between judgements of auditory and visual stimuli derived from most procedures were small and sometimes not statistically significant, although differences almost always involved visual stimuli producing more variable judgements. Currently, the most viable explanation of the effects appears to be some sort of pacemaker-counter model with higher pacemaker speed for auditory stimuli, although this approach cannot, in its present form, deal quantitatively with all the findings usually obtained.","PeriodicalId":29927,"journal":{"name":"Timing & Time Perception","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judgements of the Duration of Auditory and Visual Stimuli\",\"authors\":\"J. Wearden, L. Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22134468-BJA10008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nStudies of judgements of the durations of filled auditory and visual stimuli were reviewed, and some previously unpublished data were analysed. Data supported several conclusions. Firstly, auditory stimuli have longer subjective durations than visual ones, with visual stimuli commonly being judged as having 80–90% of the duration of auditory ones. Secondly, the effect was multiplicative, with the auditory/visual difference increasing as the intervals became longer. Only a small number of exceptions to both these conclusions were found. Thirdly, differences in variability between judgements of auditory and visual stimuli derived from most procedures were small and sometimes not statistically significant, although differences almost always involved visual stimuli producing more variable judgements. Currently, the most viable explanation of the effects appears to be some sort of pacemaker-counter model with higher pacemaker speed for auditory stimuli, although this approach cannot, in its present form, deal quantitatively with all the findings usually obtained.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Timing & Time Perception\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Timing & Time Perception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-BJA10008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Timing & Time Perception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-BJA10008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Judgements of the Duration of Auditory and Visual Stimuli
Studies of judgements of the durations of filled auditory and visual stimuli were reviewed, and some previously unpublished data were analysed. Data supported several conclusions. Firstly, auditory stimuli have longer subjective durations than visual ones, with visual stimuli commonly being judged as having 80–90% of the duration of auditory ones. Secondly, the effect was multiplicative, with the auditory/visual difference increasing as the intervals became longer. Only a small number of exceptions to both these conclusions were found. Thirdly, differences in variability between judgements of auditory and visual stimuli derived from most procedures were small and sometimes not statistically significant, although differences almost always involved visual stimuli producing more variable judgements. Currently, the most viable explanation of the effects appears to be some sort of pacemaker-counter model with higher pacemaker speed for auditory stimuli, although this approach cannot, in its present form, deal quantitatively with all the findings usually obtained.
期刊介绍:
Timing & Time Perception aims to be the forum for all psychophysical, neuroimaging, pharmacological, computational, and theoretical advances on the topic of timing and time perception in humans and other animals. We envision a multidisciplinary approach to the topics covered, including the synergy of: Neuroscience and Philosophy for understanding the concept of time, Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence for adapting basic research to artificial agents, Psychiatry, Neurology, Behavioral and Computational Sciences for neuro-rehabilitation and modeling of the disordered brain, to name just a few. Given the ubiquity of interval timing, this journal will host all basic studies, including interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary works on timing and time perception and serve as a forum for discussion and extension of current knowledge on the topic.