title: Do changes in the pace of events affect one-off judgments of duration?
abstract: Five experiments examined whether changes in the pace of external events influence people's judgments of duration. In Experiments 1a-1c, participants heard pieces of music whose tempo accelerated, decelerated, or remained constant. In Experiment 2, participants completed a visuo-motor task in which the rate of stimulus presentation accelerated, decelerated, or remained constant. In Experiment 3, participants completed a reading task in which facts appeared on-screen at accelerating, decelerating, or constant rates. In all experiments, the physical duration of the to-be-judged interval was the same across conditions. We found no significant effects of temporal structure on duration judgments in any of the experiments, either when participants knew that a time estimate would be required (prospective judgments) or when they did not (retrospective judgments). These results provide a starting point for the investigation of how temporal structure affects one-off judgments of duration like those typically made in natural settings.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Hannah M
authors.initials: HM
authors.lastname: Darlow
authors.forename: Alexandra S
authors.initials: AS
authors.lastname: Dylman
authors.forename: Ana I
authors.initials: AI
authors.lastname: Gheorghiu
authors.forename: William J
authors.initials: WJ
authors.lastname: Matthews
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006309:Hearing; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009146:Music; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013997:Time Factors; D013998:Time Perception; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Apr;72(3):561-82
references.pmid: 20348562
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Oct;37(5):1617-27
references.pmid: 21517218
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1994 May;22(3):344-51
references.pmid: 8007836
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998 Aug;24(4):1087-104
references.pmid: 9706710
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1997 Oct;23(4):502-11
references.pmid: 9335137
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Jun;8(2):270-7
references.pmid: 11495114
references.citation: J Vis. 2009 Jul 22;9(7):14
references.pmid: 19761329
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1983 Jan;11(1):77-82
references.pmid: 6855562
references.citation: PLoS One. 2010 Feb 17;5(2):e9271
references.pmid: 20174648
references.citation: Perception. 1987;16(4):485-520
references.pmid: 3444731
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 1997 Jun;4(2):184-97
references.pmid: 21331825
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1984;423:52-77
references.pmid: 6588812
references.citation: Psychol Monogr. 1963;77(13):1-31
references.pmid: 5877542
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Feb;37(1):303-13
references.pmid: 20731508
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Jan;21(1):133-9
references.pmid: 20424034
references.citation: PLoS One. 2007 Nov 28;2(11):e1264
references.pmid: 18043760
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 1998 May;51(2):97-120
references.pmid: 9621837
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011 May 09;6(5):e19815
references.pmid: 21573020
references.citation: Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003 Feb;35(1):116-24
references.pmid: 12723786
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2004 Oct;66(7):1171-89
references.pmid: 15751474
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1996 Jul;22(3):307-20
references.pmid: 8691161
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Oct;62(10):2014-29
references.pmid: 19235096
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol B. 1995 Nov;48(4):289-310
references.pmid: 8532899
references.citation: Perception. 1992;21(4):545-57
references.pmid: 1437469
references.citation: J Neurosci Methods. 2007 May 15;162(1-2):8-13
references.pmid: 17254636
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2013 May;66(3):259-82
references.pmid: 23395774
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Oct;31(5):919-38
references.pmid: 16262489
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Feb;64(2):363-80
references.pmid: 20737353
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e49362
references.pmid: 23251340
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1998 Jul;60(5):768-84
references.pmid: 9682603
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1997 Oct;59(7):1118-40
references.pmid: 9360484
references.citation: Behav Processes. 2011 Jan;86(1):68-74
references.pmid: 20933588
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Oct;135(2):226-32
references.pmid: 20674884
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1989 Jul;96(3):459-91
references.pmid: 2756068
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1995 Jan;57(1):105-16
references.pmid: 7885802
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Mar;139(3):524-31
references.pmid: 22370503
references.citation: Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
references.pmid: 17695343
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Nov;62(11):2171-86
references.pmid: 19370453
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1988 Apr;95(2):274-95
references.pmid: 3375401
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Mar;100(3):426-32
references.pmid: 21280965
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Oct;35(4):525-37
references.pmid: 19839705
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33049
references.pmid: 22412982
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):225-37
references.pmid: 19293088
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2012 Nov;40(8):1339-51
references.pmid: 22806428