Abstract:Integrating visual and tactile information in the temporal domain is critical for active perception. To accomplish this, coordinated timing is required. Here, we study perceived duration within and across these two modalities. Specifically, we examined how duration comparisons within and across vision and touch were influenced by temporal context and presentation order using a two-interval forced choice task. We asked participants to compare the duration of two temporal intervals defined by tactile or visual events. Two constant standard durations (700 ms and 1,000 ms in ‘shorter’ sessions; 1,000 ms and 1,500 ms in ‘longer’ sessions) were compared to variable comparison durations in different sessions. In crossmodal trials, standard and comparison durations were presented in different modalities, whereas in the intramodal trials, the two durations were presented in the same modality. The standard duration was either presented first (<sc>) or followed the comparison duration (<cs>). In both crossmodal and intramodal conditions, we found that the longer standard duration was overestimated in <cs> trials and underestimated in <sc> trials whereas the estimation of shorter standard duration was unbiased. Importantly, the estimation of 1,000ms was biased when it was the longer standard duration within the shorter sessions but not when it was the shorter standard duration within the longer sessions, indicating an effect of temporal context. The effects of presentation order can be explained by a central tendency effect applied in different ways to different presentation orders. Both crossmodal and intramodal conditions showed better discrimination performance for <sc> trials than <cs> trials, supporting the Type B effect for both crossmodal and intramodal duration comparison. Moreover, these results were not dependent on whether the standard duration was defined using tactile or visual stimuli. Overall, our results indicate that duration comparison between vision and touch is dependent on presentation order and temporal context, but not modality.

Differences in Duration of Eye Fixation for Conditions in a Numerical Stroop-Effect Experiment

Attention Does Not Play a Role in Chronostasis Effect

The Influence Of Stimulant Material Category On The Stroop Dilution Effect

A color-digit Stroop task shows numerical influence on numerosity processing

Adjustment of control in the numerical Stroop task

The Attentional Blink Between Two Color Processing Tasks

Event-Related Potentials Reveal the Impact of Conflict Strength in a Numerical Stroop Paradigm

Evidence for five types of fixation during a random saccade eye tracking task and changes in fixation duration as a function of time-on-task

The Stroop effect at 80: The competition between stimulus control and cognitive control.

Eye Movements in Visual Duration Perception: Disentangling Stimulus from Time in Predecisional Processes

Exploring Binocular Visual Attention by Presenting Rapid Dichoptic and Dioptic Series

Dissociation between reaction time and pupil dilation in the Stroop task.

Stimulus Variation and Sequential Judgements of Duration

Duration Comparisons for Vision and Touch Are Dependent on Presentation Order and Temporal Context

Ganzfeld Perceptual Field and Gender Effects on Short-Term Memory as a Function of Rate of Digit Presentation

Evidence for five types of fixation during a random saccade eye tracking task: Implications for the study of oculomotor fatigue

Retrospective attention: The effects on time perception

The temporal dynamics of the Stroop effect from childhood to young and older adulthood

Control of fixation duration during visual search task execution

The Stroop Task Sex Difference: Evolved Inhibition or Color Naming?

Evaluating the Stroop Test With Older Adults: Construct Validity, Short Term Test-Retest Reliability, and Sensitivity to Mental Fatigue