The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Keele University, Keele, UK.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023 Nov;76(11):2596-2612. doi: 10.1177/17470218231157674. Epub 2023 Mar 9.
More experience results in better performance, usually. In most tasks, the more chances to learn we have, the better we are at it. This does not always appear to be the case in time perception however. In the current article, we use three different methods to investigate the role of the number of standard example durations presented on performance on three timing tasks: rhythm continuation, deviance detection, and final stimulus duration judgement. In Experiments 1a and 1b, rhythms were produced with the same accuracy whether one, two, three, or four examples of the critical duration were presented. In Experiment 2, participants were required to judge which of four stimuli had a different duration from the other three. This judgement did not depend on which of the four stimuli was the deviant one. In Experiments 3a and 3b, participants were just as accurate at judging the duration of a final stimulus in comparison to the prior stimuli regardless of the number of standards presented prior to the final stimulus. In summary, we never found any systematic effect of the number of standards presented on performance on any of the three timing tasks. In the discussion, we briefly relate these findings to three theories of time perception.
通常来说,经验越丰富,表现越好。在大多数任务中,我们学习的机会越多,表现就越好。然而,在时间感知方面,情况似乎并非总是如此。在当前的文章中,我们使用三种不同的方法来研究在三个计时任务中呈现的标准示例持续时间数量对表现的作用:节奏延续、偏差检测和最终刺激持续时间判断。在实验 1a 和 1b 中,无论呈现一个、两个、三个还是四个关键持续时间的示例,节奏的产生都具有相同的准确性。在实验 2 中,参与者需要判断四个刺激中哪一个与其他三个刺激的持续时间不同。这种判断不取决于四个刺激中的哪一个是异常的。在实验 3a 和 3b 中,无论在最后一个刺激之前呈现了多少个标准,参与者在判断最后一个刺激的持续时间与之前的刺激时一样准确。总之,我们从未在任何三个计时任务中的表现上发现呈现的标准数量有任何系统的影响。在讨论中,我们简要地将这些发现与三种时间感知理论联系起来。