According to Pöppel (1997), there is a low-frequency mechanism binding successive events―a kind of temporal integration―into perceptual or action units when these events occur no more than 3 s apart. It has been shown that for discriminating brief auditory intervals, it is worth adopting an explicit counting strategy when intervals are longer than 1.2 s ( Grondin, Meilleur-Wells, & Lachance, 1999).Īt longer interstimulus intervals, another phenomenon is experienced, as revealed by several experiments. Indeed, there is a possibility to avoid this increase of the Weber fraction. When intervals to-be discriminated are longer than circa 1.3 s ( Grondin 2012) the fraction increases-i.e., the discrimination is more difficult (for reviews, see Gibbon, Malapani, Dale, & Gallistel, 1997 Grondin 2014), just as if a crucial cognitive capacity would be exceeded with long intervals ( Grondin et al. It is now known that for the discrimination of auditory brief intervals, the Weber fraction is not constant. However, the experience of duration can be approached differently. These phenomena were found decades ago and labeled as ‘the psychological moment’ all events occurring within this period would be processed as co-temporal (but see Elliott & Giersch 2016).
#Prospective vs retrospective study series
If a series of identical visual stimuli occurs at brief interstimulus intervals (<100 ms), according to many old experiments, some interesting phenomena occur (see reviews in Block 1979 Patterson 1990). We conclude by reviewing research on several related issues, such as temporal illusions and what is usually called prospective memory. Then we discuss prospective and retrospective duration judgment processes and findings. We first detail the importance of different time scales and review procedures, methods, and measures. We start with brief temporal events, and then we review research on longer episodes. Researchers have revealed several spans that they think might involve different processes: 100 ms ( Block 1979) to about 1.3 s ( Grondin 2010 Grondin, Laflamme, & Mioni, 2015), 3 s ( Pöppel 1978), or 7 s ( James 1890), and of course even longer.
Retrospective duration estimates are used in situations such as those involving remembering, eyewitness testimony, and so on. In everyday life, a time estimate becomes relevant and important when an environmental situation makes demands to respond in a temporally accurate way. In the retrospective paradigm, a person is misdirected from attending to time, such as with a cover story or a cover task.
In the prospective paradigm, a person is told that time estimation is relevant and important. Instead of using James’s (1890) descriptions (time in passing and in retrospect), they used the terms prospective and retrospective. In the experimental literature, which we review later, Hicks, Miller, and Kinsbourne (1976) conducted a seminal study. The database PsycINFO distinguishes these terms in a slightly overlapping way: The keyword time perception is defined as “perception of duration, simultaneity, or succession in the passage of time.” The keyword time estimation is defined as “estimation of duration or passage of time.” The MEDLINE, or PubMed, database simply uses the keyword time perception, which is defined as “the ability to estimate periods of time lapsed or duration of time.” In the present chapter, we mainly focus on time perception and time estimation (see Block & Hancock 2013, for an annotated bibliography). For a more in-depth historical review, see Hancock and Block (2012), and for a summary of recent review articles, see Block and Grondin (2014). This is evident in a recent edited volume, also with the title Psychology of time ( Grondin 2008b). Beginning especially with theoretical reviews by the philosopher-turned-psychologist James (1890) and continuing through Fraisse in his famous books, Psychologie du temps (1957/1963) and Psychologie du rythme ( 1974), the psychology of timing and time perception have blossomed.
Also, in the early times of what later became psychology, several interesting theories on timing and time perception were proposed (e.g., Hooke, 1682, as cited in Hintzman 2003 Guyau, 1888 see Michon, Pouthas, & Jackson, 1988). This was almost two decades before the widely mentioned beginning of psychological research ( Wundt 1886).
The experimental study of time estimation has a history that apparently started with research published in 1868 by Vierordt ( Lejeune & Wearden 2009). Although one could date the history of the study of psychological time back to antiquity, with early hominids’ experiences and Aristotle’s philosophical speculations, that is a matter for historians.
0 kommentar(er)
