Modelling Chronometric Counting

in Timing & Time Perception
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Participants performed on a temporal generalization task with standard durations being either 4 or 8 s, and comparison durations ranging from 2.5 to 5.5, or 5 to 11 s. They were required to count during all stimulus presentations, and counts were recorded as spacebar presses. Generalization gradients around both standard values peaked at the standard, but the gradient from the 8-s condition was steeper. Measured counts had low variance, both within trials and between trials, and a start process, which was different from the counting sequence, could also be identified in data. A computer model assuming that a comparison duration was identified as the standard when the count value for the comparison was one that had previously occurred for a standard fitted the temporal generalization gradients well. The model was also applied to some published data on temporal reproduction with counting, and generally fitted data adequately. The model makes a distinction between the variance of the count unit from one trial to another, and the counts within the trial, and this distinction was related to the overall variance of behaviours resulting from counting, and the ways in which variability of timing measures change with the duration timed.

Sections

References

AbelS. M. (1972). Duration discrimination of noise and tone bursts. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 51, 12191223.

Aagten-MurphyD., IversenJ. R., WilliamsC. L., & MeckW. H. (2014). Novel inversions in auditory sequences provide evidence for spontaneous subtraction of time and number. Timing Time Percept., 2, 188209.

AllmanM. J., TekiS.GriffithsT. D., & MeckW. H. (2014). Properties of the internal clock: First- and second-order principles of subjective time. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 65, 743771.

Droit-VoletS. (2006). Counting in a time discrimination task in children and adults. Behav. Process., 71, 164171.

FettermanJ. G., & KilleenP. R. (1990). A componential analysis of pacemaker-counter timing systems. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 16, 766780.

GettyD. J. (1976). Counting processes in human timing. Percept. Psychophys., 20, 191197.

GibbonJ, Church, R. M., & Meck, W. H. (1984). Scalar timing in memory. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 423, 5277.

Gilaie-DotanS., ReesG., ButterworthB., & CappellettiM. (2014). Impaired numerical ability affects supra-second time estimation. Timing Time Percept., 2, 169187.

GillilandA. R., & MartinR. (1940). Some factors in estimating short time intervals. J. Exp. Psychol., 27, 243255.

GlicksohnJ., & LeshemR. (2011). Reproduction of duration: How should I count the ways?Lect. Notes Artific. Intell., 6789, 7991.

GrondinS., OuelletB., & RousselM. E. (2004). Benefits and limits of explicit counting for discriminating temporal intervals. Can. J. Exp. Psychol., 58, 112.

GrondinS., Meilleur-WellsG., & LachanceR. (1999). When to start explicit counting in a time-interval discrimination task. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 25, 9931004.

HenryF. M. (1948). Discrimination of the duration of a sound. J. Exp. Psychol., 38, 734743.

HintonS. C., HarringtonD. L., BinderJ. R., DurgerianS., & RaoS. M. (2004). Neural systems supporting timing and chronometric counting: An fMRI study. Cogn. Brain Res., 21, 183192.

HintonS. C., & RaoS. M. (2004). “One thousand one....one thousand two…”: Chronometric counting violates the scalar properties in interval timing. Psychon. Bull. Rev., 11, 2430.

HopkinsG. W. (1984). Ultrastable stimulus-reponse latencies: Towards a model of response-stimulus synchronization. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 423, 1629.

KilleenP., & WeissN. A. (1987). Optimal timing and the Weber function. Psychol. Rev., 94, 455468.

MeckW. H., & MalapaniC. (2004). Neuroimaging of interval timing. Cogn. Brain Res., 21, 133137.

RakitinB. C., GibbonJ., PenneyT. B., MalapaniC., HintonS. E., & MeckW. H. (1998). Scalar expectancy theory and peak-interval timing in humans. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process., 24, 1533.

RyanL. J., & FritzM. S. (2007). Erroneous knowledge of results affects decision and memory processes on timing tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 33, 14681482.

ShiZ., ChurchR. M., & MeckW. H. (2013). Bayesian optimization of time perception. Trends Cogn. Sci., 17, 556564.

WeardenJ. H. (1991). Do humans possess an internal clock with scalar timing properties?Learn. Motiv., 22, 59– 83.

WeardenJ. H. (1992). Temporal generalization in humans. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process., 18, 134144.

WeardenJ. H., DenovanL., FakhriM., & HaworthR. (1997). Scalar timing in temporal generalization in humans with longer stimulus durations. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process., 23, 502511.

WeardenJ. H., & FarrarR. (2007). Effects of feedback and calibration on the verbal estimation of the duration of tones. Acta Psychologica, 126, 117.

WeardenJ. H., & LejeuneH. (2008). Scalar properties in human timing: Conformity and violations. Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 61, 569587.

WeardenJ. H., & McShaneB. (1988). Interval production as an analogue of the peak procedure: Evidence for similarity of human and animal timing processes. Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 40B, 363375.

Figures

  • Diagrams of the counting process during stimulus presentation. The upper panel shows a trial without a post-stimulus count, the lower panel a trial with a post-stimulus count. ON/OFF = onset and offset of stimulus to be timed. ICI n = inter-count interval n. Also indicated are the start time, the time from the start of the stimulus to the first count, and in the lower panel the downward-pointing arrow after stimulus offset shows the post-stimulus count.

    View in gallery
  • Upper panel: Mean (and standard error) of inter-count intervals from the 4-s (4 s ICI) and 8-s (8 s ICI) conditions, and start times (4 s ST and 8 s ST). Lower panel: Coefficients of variation (standard deviation/mean) from count intervals and start times. BET = between-trials cv; WITH = within-trials cv, ST = start time. Vertical bars indicate standard errors of the mean.

    View in gallery
  • Performance on the temporal generalization task. The proportion of YES responses (identifications of a comparison duration as the standard) is plotted against comparison duration. Values shown are the means, with the standard error shown by vertical bars. Upper panel: data from the condition with a 4-s standard; lower panel: data from the condition with an 8-s standard.

    View in gallery
  • Upper panel: Data from Fig. 2 plotted on the same relative scale, with the proportion of YES responses plotted again the comparison duration divided by the standard value. Other details as Fig. 2. Lower panel: Data from Fig. 2 plotted in terms of proportion of potential trials that were misses (failures to identify the standard duration when presented), and false alarms (responding YES after a non-standard duration). miss4 and miss8 are miss proportions from the 4 and 8-s condition, respectively, and fa4 and fa8 show false alarm rates from the two conditions.

    View in gallery
  • Results of simulation of temporal generalization. Upper panel: 4-s condition; lower panel: 8-s condition. Data points are show as unconnected filled circles, and the line shows the simulation values.

    View in gallery
  • Standard deviations of reproductions of 11 s, derived from the simulation, with mean inter-count interval varied over values of 150, 350, and 1200 ms. Each point shows five simulations of 100 reproduction trials. The line connects the average standard deviation from each inter-count interval used.

    View in gallery
  • Schematic diagram of the counting model used to simulate temporal generalization performance. See text for details.

    View in gallery
  • Results from the simulation plotted as the data in Fig. 3. Upper panel: simulated proportion of YES responses plotted on the same relative scale. Lower panel: miss and false alarm analysis of simulation results. Other details as Fig. 3.

    View in gallery
  • Simulated generalization gradients resulting from varying between- and within-trials cv. Upper panel: effect of varying the within-trials cv (values are shown in the small panel); Lower panel: effect of varying the between-trials cv (values are shown in the small panel). See text for other details.

    View in gallery
  • Simulations of temporal reproduction performance. Upper panel: mean time produced plotted against target time. Lower panel: standard deviation of times produced plotted against target time. Results in each panel come from two simulations described in the text. Straight lines show best-fitting linear regressions.

    View in gallery
  • Coefficient of variation of reproductions resulting from varying between- and within-trials cv. Upper panel: effect of varying within-trials cv (values [w] are shown in the small panel); Lower panel: effect of varying the between-trials cv (values [b] are shown in the small panel). See text for other details.

    View in gallery

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 21 21 8
Full Text Views 4 4 4
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0