Weber (slope) analyses of timing variability in tapping and drawing tasks.
Timing variability in continuous drawing tasks has not been found to be correlated with timing variability in repetitive finger tapping in recent studies (S. D. Robertson et al., 1999; H. N. Zelaznik, R. M. C. Spencer, & R. B. Ivry, 2002). Furthermore, the central component of timing variability, as measured by the slope of the timing variance versus the square of the timed interval, differed for tapping and drawing tasks. On the basis of those results, the authors posited that timing in tapping is explicit and as such uses a central representation of the interval to be timed, whereas timing in drawing tasks is implicit, that is, the temporal component is an emergent property of the trajectory produced. The authors examined that hypothesis in the present study by determining the linear relationship between timing variance and squared duration for tapping, circle-drawing, and line-drawing tasks. Participants (N = 50) performed 1 of 5 tasks: finger tapping, line drawing in the x dimension, line drawing in the y dimension, continuous circle drawing timed in the x dimension, or continuous circle drawing timed in the y dimension. The slopes differed significantly between finger tapping, line drawing, and circle drawing, suggesting separable sources of timing variability. The slopes of the 2 circle-drawing tasks did not differ from one another, nor did the slopes of the 2 line-drawing tasks differ significantly, suggesting a shared timing process within those tasks. Those results are evidence of a high degree of specificity in timing processes.
Spencer
Rebecca M C
RM
Department of Psychology, University of California at Berkeley, USA.
Zelaznik
Howard N
HN
D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016014:Linear Models; D008297:Male; D009048:Motor Skills; D009949:Orientation; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D011601:Psychophysics; D011930:Reaction Time; D012016:Reference Values; D013998:Time Perception