↓ Skip to main content

Visual-auditory differences in duration discrimination of intervals in the subsecond and second range

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Visual-auditory differences in duration discrimination of intervals in the subsecond and second range
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01626
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas H. Rammsayer, Natalie Borter, Stefan J. Troche

Abstract

A common finding in time psychophysics is that temporal acuity is much better for auditory than for visual stimuli. The present study aimed to examine modality-specific differences in duration discrimination within the conceptual framework of the Distinct Timing Hypothesis. This theoretical account proposes that durations in the lower milliseconds range are processed automatically while longer durations are processed by a cognitive mechanism. A sample of 46 participants performed two auditory and visual duration discrimination tasks with extremely brief (50-ms standard duration) and longer (1000-ms standard duration) intervals. Better discrimination performance for auditory compared to visual intervals could be established for extremely brief and longer intervals. However, when performance on duration discrimination of longer intervals in the 1-s range was controlled for modality-specific input from the sensory-automatic timing mechanism, the visual-auditory difference disappeared completely as indicated by virtually identical Weber fractions for both sensory modalities. These findings support the idea of a sensory-automatic mechanism underlying the observed visual-auditory differences in duration discrimination of extremely brief intervals in the millisecond range and longer intervals in the 1-s range. Our data are consistent with the notion of a gradual transition from a purely modality-specific, sensory-automatic to a more cognitive, amodal timing mechanism. Within this transition zone, both mechanisms appear to operate simultaneously but the influence of the sensory-automatic timing mechanism is expected to continuously decrease with increasing interval duration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 40 49%
Neuroscience 12 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Engineering 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,829
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,175
of 29,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,669
of 284,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#394
of 493 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 284,375 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 493 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.