Effect of Time Duration on Prospective Judgment of time Perception

 

Vishal Yadav^1*, Naveen¹, Trayambak Tiwari¹, Tara Singh¹, Indramani L. Singh¹, A. L. Singh²

 

         ¹Cognitive Science Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

²Department of Psychology, Vasanta Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India.

 

ABSTRACT:

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Time perception refers to subjective experience of time which is measured by individual’s own perception about the duration of the events. People’s time perception has been predisposed to diverge from objective time depending on what they were busy with during a particular period of time (Buhusi and Meck, 2009). Time seemingly passes faster when people have a good time, whereas time seemingly drags when they are bored. The concept of “time perception” has been introduced by Fraisse in 1984. Perceived time is not as the actual or chronological time. It implies the subjectivity of time depending on human perception.

 

The role of psychological time in human life is so important that it has been intensely investigated by researchers. It has been tried to explain how people perceive time differently from objective timing (Block, 1990). Many studies on time perception focus on duration which is the representation of present and recent past events. Although humans have no sensory organ for timing, it is asserted that cognitive and biological processes explain time perception of human beings. The reason is that attention and memory related cognitive processes are essential to estimate a given duration (Block and Zakay, 1996).

 

Experiments of time estimation used two dominant paradigms: prospective and retrospective paradigm. In prospective paradigm, person knows in advances that a duration judgment is required, whereas in retrospective paradigm, person does not have this prior knowledge.

 

Attentional gate model (Block and Zakay, 1996) is a leading model of prospective time judgment. This modal assumes that a mental pacemaker regularly generates pulses to measure time. If a person directs attention to the course of time, a gate opens and are accumulated in a cognitive counter. When attention is distracted by a secondary task, the gate remains closed, pulses are not accumulated and the time estimation gets distorted.

 

Temporal processing is an integral component of many everyday goal oriented behaviors and plays a crucial role in daily activities of humantime estimation (Matell and Meck, 2000). Furthermore, it plays a crucial role in different cognitive processes such as planning and decision making when people want to attain goals or complete an activity on time. According to Vierordt’s law (1868), the perceived durations tends to be shorter when the actual duration is long. On the other hand, a short duration can be perceived as longer (Block and Gruber, 2013). Researchers have established several factors which determine time perception such as task demands (Casini and Macar, 1997), task difficulty (Block, 1992), and duration (Zakay, 1993). These factors lead to some errors in judgment of time-duration like overestimation or underestimation (Flaherty, 1999). The present study made an attempt to assess the effect ofdifferent time durations in low demandingworking memory task using prospective judgment paradigm of time perception. It was hypothesized that time perception would be greater in short duration in comparison tomedium and long duration. Time perception in terms of ratio would be less with longer duration than short and medium duration of working memory task and Coefficient of Variation score would stable in all three durations.

 

METHOD:

Participants

Fifty undergraduate and postgraduate students of Banaras Hindu University with normal or corrected to normal vision were participated in the study. Participants with age ranged from of 20 to 25 years were participated in the current study (M=21.68, SD=1.69). Participants with any known chronic illness or under medication were excluded from the study. Further, only those participants who secure a score of minimum 80% on correct responsemeasure during practice session was retained for final session of experimental task.

 

Apparatus:

The stimuli were presented on a Dell (Inspiron-3250) Intel i3 processor computer using Cedrus^®Super Lab 4.5 (2010) software and displayed at the center of the screen against a grey background. The screen was viewed from a distance of approximately 30 cm.

 

Experimental Task:

Working memory search task was used in the present experiment for measuring subjective experience of time perception. Memory search task started with the fixation point, which was presented for 200 millisecond (ms) followed by two digits number between 0 to 9 presented in 3x3 grid for 500 ms. After that a blank screen was displayed for 500 ms followed by stimulus recognition slide in which target/non-target waspresented for 500 ms. Then response screen was displayed for 1300 ms. If the number presented in the 3x3 grid were matched with the stimulus of the recognition slides then it was considered as a target or if the digits was not present in the slides then it was considered as a non-target. There were three varied duration i.e. short, medium, long, comprising 12, 24, and 36 seconds, respectively in the experimental task, the trials of the three different duration were randomized. After completion of the each task duration a black square was displayed in the centre of screen for subjective time estimation. Participants were asked to reproduce the time estimation for the each trail.

 

Design:

A within subject design was used in the present study. Time durations (short, medium and long) were treated as independent variable, whereas time perceptions in terms of ratio, absolute error and coefficient of variation were treated as dependent measures.

 

Procedure:

An informed consent were taken from all the participants. Before the main experimental session a demonstration of experimental task was given. After the demonstration, participants were given practice with three different durations (9, 18, 27 sec). Followed by main experimental task. Reproduction method was used for judgment of time perception. The data were recorded in terms of time estimations duration judgment on each task trial.

 

Figure 1: Flow chart of working memory task

RESULTS:

Present study aim to investigate the effect of different time duration on prospective judgment of time perception. After the data collection the raw data of time estimation score were transformed in to measure representing directional error (ratio), absolute error and coefficient of variation. It is a standard practice to express these measure as proportion so that all score should be on anidenticalscale. The data were further subjected to one way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA).

 

Ratio Measure:

Ratio scores provided an index of the direction of errors, score below 1.0 being indicative of underproduction and aboverepresents over-reproduction of time perception. The ratio score was calculated by using the following formula:

 

[Ratio=Reproduction duration/Target duration]

The ratio scores results revealed that participants highly underestimated the time under longer duration (M=0.61, SD=20) in comparison to medium duration (M=0.64, SD=0.18) and short duration (M=0.78, SD=0.24), and the result was found highly significant F (2, 98)=27.71, p<0.001 (see figure 2).

 

Figure 2: Ratio score as a function of time duration

 

Absolute Error Measure:

Absolute error scores show the proportionaldifference between objective clock time and estimation time, and they are used to assess the overall level of accuracyof time judgments. The absolute error score is an indicator of accuracy of time perception, higher absolute error indicates lower accuracy on time perception. The absolute error score was calculated by using the following formula:

 

Absolute error = |Reproduction Duration-Target Duration|/Target Duration]

Or

 

[AE=|R_d-T_d|/T_d]

 

Absolute error results revealed that accuracy on time perception dropped highly under longer duration (M=.39, SD=.18) than medium (M=.36, SD=0.17) and short duration (M=.22, SD=0.18), ANOVA yielded main effect of time durations on Absolute error, F (2, 98) =24.91, p=0.001 (see figure 3)

 

Figure3: Absolute error score as a function of time duration

 

Coefficient of Variation (CV) Measure:

Thethirdmeasures of time perceptionis Coefficient of Variation (CV) index represented the variability in temporal judgments. The CV score was calculated by using the following formula:

 

CV=SD/Mean:

 

Coefficient of variation results revealed no variability in temporal judgment scores under short (M=.29, SD=.28), medium (M=.28, SD=.20) and long (M=.23, SD=.17) duration oftime perception. ANOVA result of Coefficient of variation index revealed no significant difference variation in temporal judgment among durations, F (2, 98)=1.27, p=.28 (see figure 4)

Figure 4: CV score as a function of time duration

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

The present study examined the effect of different levels of time duration on prospective judgment of time perception by using working memory task. The findings revealed higher underestimation of time perception under longer (36 Sec) as compared to medium (24 Sec) and short (12 Sec) duration task. The findings arecontract the previous researchwhere participants underestimated longer duration highly than shorter durations (Block and Zakay 2006; Duzcu and Hohenberger; 2014). Duzcu and Hohenberger (2014) also claimed that effect of the secondary task on time estimation are more profound in longer duration.

 

The findings of the current study also supported by several laws and models like Vierordt's law (1868), which stated thatnegative relationship between judgment of perceived duration and actual duration of time. The findings can be further explained in terms of attentional gate model (Block and Zakay 1996). According to this model a mental pacemaker regularly generates pulses to measure time, when individuals directs attention to a particular course of time a gate opens and accumulated in cognitive counter. Whenever attention is distracted by secondary task the gates remains closed and pulse are not accumulated which leads to distortion in time estimation. Further Van Rijn and Taatgen (2008) explain this effect by the non-linearity of time scale. The secondary task causing fewer pulses to be counted in the accumulator influence longer durations highly compared to shorter duration.

 

The findings of current study also revealed least error in prospective judgment of time perception under short duration, whereas longer duration was highlyunderestimated. Therefore on the basis of current study it can be concluded that human reproduce short durations more accurately than longer time interval.

 

Several factors limits the results of the present study. Firstly, prospective judgment of time perception was measured by using low demanding working memory task. Secondly, task difficulty and task modalities (Visual/Sensory) factors could also influence the prospective judgment of time perception. Therefore, future research should employ high working memory search task with different task modalities to measure prospective judgment of time perception.

 

REFERENCES:

1.     Baddeley, A. D., and Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake and P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 28-61). New York: Cambridge University Press.

2.     Baddeley, A.D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3.     Block, R. A., and Gruber, R. P. (2014). Time perception, attention, and memory: A selective review. Acta Psychologica, 149, 129-133.

4.     Block, R. A., and Zakay, D. (1997). Prospective and retrospective duration judgment: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 184-197.

5.     Block, R. A., Hancock, P.A., and Zakay, D. (2010). How cognitive load affects duration judgment: A meta-analytic review. Acta Psychologica, 134, 330-343.

6.     Block, R.A. (1990). Models of Psychological time. In R.A. Block (Ed.), Cognitive models of psychological time (pp.1-35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

7.     Brown, S. W. (1985). Time Perception and attention: The effects of Prospective versus retrospectives paradigms and task demands on perceived duration. Perception and Psychophysics, 38, 115-124.

8.     Brown, S. W. (2006). Timing and executive function: Bidirectional interference between concurrent temporal production and randomization tasks. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1464-1471.

9.     Buhusi, C. V. and Meck, W. H. (2005). What makes us tick? Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing. Nature Reviews Neurosciences, 6, 755-765.

10.   Casini, L., and Macar, F. (1997). Effects of attention manipulation on judgments of duration and of intensity in the visual modality. Memory & Cognition, 25 (6), 812-818.

11.   Cedrus (2010). Super Lab (Version 4.5) [Computer Software]. San Pedro, CA.

12.   Chaston, A., & Kingstone, A. (2004). Time estimation: The effect of cortically mediated attention. Brain and Cognition, 25, (2), 286-289.

13.   Droit-Volet, S., and Gil, S. (2015). The emotional body and time perception.  Cognition and Emotion, 29, 1-13.

14.   Duzcu, H., and Hohenberger, A. (2014). Prospective duration judgments: The role of temporality and executive demands of concurrent tasks. Acta Psychologica, 147, 34- 41.

15.   Fortin, C., and Rousseau, R. (1987). Time perception as an index of processing demand in           memory search. Perception and Psychophysics, 42, 377-382.

16.   Fortin, C., and Rousseau, R. (1998). Interference from short-term memory processing on encoding and reproducing brief durations. Psychological Research, 61, 269-276.

17.   Fraisse, P. (1984). Perception and estimation of time. Annual Review of Psychology, 35 (1), 1–36.

18.   Khan, A., Sharma, N. K., & Dixit, S. (2006). Effect of cognitive load and paradigm on time perception. Journal of the Indian Academy of applied Psychology, 32, 37-42.

19.   Lejeune, H., and Wearden, J. H. (2009). Vierordt’s the Experimental Study of the Time Sense (1868) and its legacy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 941-960.

20.   Matell, M. S., Meck, W. H. (2000). Neuropsychological mechanism of interval timing behaviour. BioEssays, 22.1, 94-103.

21.   Mioni, G., Stablum, F., McClintock, S. M.  & Grondin, S. (2014). Different method for reproducing time, different results. Atten Percept Psychophys, 76(3), 675-681.

22.   Ogden, R. S., Salominaite, E., Jones, L. A., Fisk, J. E. & Montgomery, C. (2011). The role of executive functions in human perspectives interval timing. Acta Psychologica, 137 (3), 352-358.

23.   Sari, F. B. (2015). Effect of kind and amount of cognitive load and duration on prospective time estimation. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from: etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/ 12619065/index. Pdf.

24.   Smith, N. C. (1969). The effects on time perception of increasing the complexity of cognitive task. Journal of General Psychology, 81, 231-235.

25.   Van Rijn, H., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Timing of multiple overlapping intervals: How many clocks do we have? Acta Psychologica, 129 (3), 365–375.

26.   Zakay, D. (1993). Relative and absolute duration judgments under prospective and retrospective paradigms. Perception and Psychophysics, 54 (5), 656-664.

27.   Zakay, D., & Block, R. A. (1995). An attentional-gate model of prospective time estimation. In M. Richelle, V. D. Keyser, G. d’Ydewalle, & A. Vandierendonck (Eds.), Time and the dynamic control of behavior (pp.167-178). Liege, Belgium: University Liege.

28.   Zakay, D., and Block, R. A. (1996). The role of attention in time estimation process. In M. A. Pastor (Ed), Time, internal clocks, and movement (pp.143-164). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

29.   Zakay, D., and Block, R. A. (1997). Temporal cognition. Currents directions in psychological Sciences, 6, 12-16.

30.   Zakay, D., and Block, R. A. (2004). Prospective and retrospective duration judgments: An executive- control process. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalist, 64, 319-32.

 

 

 

Received on 30.06.2018       Modified on 18.07.2018

Accepted on 01.08.2018      © A&V Publication all right reserved