Quantal and Deterministic Timing in Human Duration Discrimination
A. Kristofferson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23413.x
IF: 6.499
1984-05-01
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Abstract:When we began to study duration discrimination, we expected it to give us rather direct information about time perception. That expectation has not been fulfilled. Instead, our “thresholds” for duration seem to be determined by our ability to produce a time interval, to time it out internally. The size of a threshold is wholly determined by the extent to which repeated attempts to time out a fixed time interval are variable.’ A set of duration stimuli is shown a t the top of FIGURE 1. Each stimulus consists of two 10-msec auditory pulses separated by the stimulus duration, D. The stimuli differ from each other only in D, and the values of D are symmetrically arranged around a midpoint value. The midpoint of the set is the base duration. A single stimulus is presented on a trial and the subject is asked to categorize it as “long” (RL) or “short” (Rs). Values of D greater than the midpoint are called long, and the decision on each trial is whether P, occurred before or after the midpoint value of D. In the experiments to be reported here, the subject is instructed to respond as quickly as possible, and the data consist of response probabilities and response latencies for each stimulus duration. The general hypothesis is pictured in FIGURE 1B. On each trial, PI triggers an internally timed interval, I, which terminates as the criterion event, C. P, triggers a sensory event B2. If, as shown here, C occurs before BZ, then a long response is determined. Short responses are triggered by B2 whenever it occurs first. The discrimination mechanism is a race between the two response triggers, Cand B2. The two kinds of responses, therefore, have different causal histories, as shown in FIGURE lC, RL being linked to P I and Rs being linked to P,. Long responses should be time-locked to P, and should occur a t the same time for all stimuli, that is, regardless of the time of occurrence of P2. Rs, on the other hand, should be time-locked to Pz . These time-locking predictions are a major test of the hypothesis and they have been confirmed experimentally.’ Since responding is speeded, short responses are direct reactions to P , and might resemble simple reaction times. Long responses are similar, except that the responses must be delayed, and RL latencies might resemble time estimation latencies. These expectations are also confirmed, and speeded duration discrimination appears to be a combination of simple reaction time and time estimation, in which one kind of response occurs on a trial, the other being countermanded. Practice with the stimulus set adjusts I so that C falls near the midpoint of the stimulus set. The lower panel in FIGURE 1 displays a specific model in which the times of occurrence of Care assumed to form an isosceles triangle. The variability in C i s due solely to variance in I, the afferent latencies having zero variance. Therefore, for each D, B, is a fixed point which divides the triangle into two parts. The proportion of the area under the triangle to the left of B, represents the probability of RL for that stimulus. Knowing the probability of RL for two different stimuli, both of which have a E2 within the triangle, enables one to calculate the quantum size, q, in msec, and also