Abstract
In this work we investigate how judgments of perceived duration are influenced by the properties of the signals that define the intervals. Participants compared two auditory intervals that could be any combination of the following four types: intervals filled with continuous tones (filled intervals), intervals filled with regularly-timed short tones (isochronous intervals), intervals filled with irregularly-timed short tones (anisochronous intervals), and intervals demarcated by two short tones (empty intervals). Results indicate that the type of intervals to be compared affects discrimination performance and induces distortions in perceived duration. In particular, we find that duration judgments are most precise when comparing two isochronous and two continuous intervals, while the comparison of two anisochronous intervals leads to the worst performance. Moreover, we determined that the magnitude of the distortions in perceived duration (an effect akin to the filled duration illusion) is higher for tone sequences (no matter whether isochronous or anisochronous) than for continuous tones. Further analysis of how duration distortions depend on the type of filling suggests that distortions are not only due to the perceived duration of the two individual intervals, but they may also be due to the comparison of two different filling types.
Highlights
Many factors other than the physical duration of an interval influence perceived duration
Post-hoc tests indicate that the following differences are statistically significant: Duration discrimination is better for continuous than empty [paired sample t-test on just noticeable difference (JND), t(16) = 3.9, p = 0.0013] and anisochronous intervals [t(16) = 7.6, p < 0.001]
Continuous and isochronous intervals are discriminated best, followed by empty intervals, while discrimination performance is worst for anisochronous intervals
Summary
Many factors other than the physical duration of an interval influence perceived duration (see Allan, 1979 for a classic and Grondin, 2010 for a recent overview). Several studies used continuous signals as filled intervals (e.g., Goldfarb and Goldstone, 1963; Steiner, 1968; Craig, 1973; Wearden et al, 2007; Hasuo et al, 2014) and compared those to empty intervals, which are typically consisting solely of a short beginning and end marker or a gap in a continuous signal (see Wearden et al, 2007 for a comparison of those two variations) Another type of filled interval leading to the filled duration illusion is a sequence of short filler signals that is compared to an empty interval lacking such fillers (e.g., Buffardi, 1971; Thomas and Brown, 1974; Adams, 1977). This overestimation has been termed “Illusion of a Divided Time Interval” by ten Hoopen et al (2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
