Log versus linear timing in human temporal bisection: A signal detection theory study.

Jérémie Jozefowiez, Clément Gaudichon, Francis Mekkass, Armando Machado
{"title":"Log versus linear timing in human temporal bisection: A signal detection theory study.","authors":"Jérémie Jozefowiez,&nbsp;Clément Gaudichon,&nbsp;Francis Mekkass,&nbsp;Armando Machado","doi":"10.1037/xan0000184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using signal detection theory, we investigated whether human participants represent time linearly or logarithmically in a bisection task. Participants saw a stimulus 1.0 to 1.5 s in duration, and then judged whether the stimulus duration was closer to 1.0 s or to 1.5 s, and how sure they were of their response. Whereas the mean of the subjective stimulus duration was a linear function of the objective stimulus duration, participants produced remarkably different psychophysical functions-linear for some participants, concave for others, and convex for still others. Hence, the appropriate question might not be whether humans encode time linearly or logarithmically, but for which participants and under which conditions is time encoded linearly, logarithmically, or even exponentially. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51088,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","volume":"44 4","pages":"396-408"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Animal Learning and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000184","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Using signal detection theory, we investigated whether human participants represent time linearly or logarithmically in a bisection task. Participants saw a stimulus 1.0 to 1.5 s in duration, and then judged whether the stimulus duration was closer to 1.0 s or to 1.5 s, and how sure they were of their response. Whereas the mean of the subjective stimulus duration was a linear function of the objective stimulus duration, participants produced remarkably different psychophysical functions-linear for some participants, concave for others, and convex for still others. Hence, the appropriate question might not be whether humans encode time linearly or logarithmically, but for which participants and under which conditions is time encoded linearly, logarithmically, or even exponentially. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类时间对分的对数与线性时序:一个信号检测理论研究。
利用信号检测理论,我们研究了人类参与者在等分任务中是线性地还是对数地表示时间。参与者看到一个持续1.0到1.5秒的刺激,然后判断刺激的持续时间是接近1.0秒还是接近1.5秒,以及他们对自己的反应有多确定。虽然主观刺激持续时间的平均值是客观刺激持续时间的线性函数,但参与者产生的心理物理功能却有显著差异——有些参与者是线性的,有些是凹的,还有一些是凸的。因此,适当的问题可能不是人类对时间进行线性编码还是对数编码,而是对哪些参与者以及在哪些条件下对时间进行线性编码、对数编码甚至指数编码。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c) 2018 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
23.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition publishes experimental and theoretical studies concerning all aspects of animal behavior processes.
期刊最新文献
Valence generalization across nonrecurring structures. Learned biases in the processing of outcomes: A brief review of the outcome predictability effect. Conditioned inhibition: Historical critiques and controversies in the light of recent advances. The partial reinforcement extinction effect: The proportion of trials reinforced during conditioning predicts the number of trials to extinction. On the role of responses in Pavlovian acquisition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1