| Title |
Traces of times past: Representations of temporal intervals in memory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13421-011-0113-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niels Taatgen, Hedderik van Rijn |
| Abstract |
Theories of time perception typically assume that some sort of memory represents time intervals. This memory component is typically underdeveloped in theories of time perception. Following earlier work that suggested that representations of different time intervals contaminate each other (Grondin, 2005; Jazayeri & Shadlen, 2010; Jones & Wearden, 2004), an experiment was conducted in which subjects had to alternate in reproducing two intervals. In two conditions of the experiment, the duration of one of the intervals changed over the experiment, forcing subjects to adjust their representation of that interval, while keeping the other constant. The results show that the adjustment of one interval carried over to the other interval, indicating that subjects were not able to completely separate the two representations. We propose a temporal reference memory that is based on existing memory models (Anderson, 1990). Our model assumes that the representation of an interval is based on a pool of recent experiences. In a series of simulations, we show that our pool model fits the data, while two alternative models that have previously been proposed do not. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 2 | 1% |
| India | 2 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 145 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 19% |
| Researcher | 28 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Professor | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 55 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 24 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 7% |
| Engineering | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,238,442
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#945
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,892
of 111,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,236 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.