80 Ss were required to reproduce 9 time intervals, ranging from 1 to 17 sec. duration, under 8 experimental conditions: the factorial arrangement of auditory and visual interval presentation, auditory and visual interval reproduction, and patterned and unpatterned stimulus filling the interval. Mode of stimulus presentation and of reproduction had no consistent effect on time estimation. Significant modifications occurred with repeated trials and reliabilities of duration estimations were consistently high.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeharI.BevanW.The perceived duration of auditory and visual intervals: Cross-modal comparison and interaction. Amer. J. Psychol., 1961, 74, 17–26.
2.
ClausenJ.An evaluation of experimental methods of time judgment. J. exp. Psychol., 1950, 40, 756–761.
3.
DanzigerK.Du PreezP. D.Reliability of time estimation by the method of reproduction. Percept. mot. Skills, 1963, 16, 879–884.
GoldstoneS.BoardmanW. K.LhamonW. T.Intersensory comparisons of temporal judgments. J. exp. Psychol., 1959, 57, 243–248.
7.
GoldstoneS.GoldfarbJ. L.Auditory and visual time judgment. J. gen. Psychol., 1964, 70, 369–387. (a)
8.
GoldstoneS.GoldfarbJ. L.Direct comparison of auditory and visual durations. J. exp. Psychol., 1964, 67, 483–485. (b)
9.
GoldstoneS.JerniganC.LhamonW. T.BoardmanW. K.A further note on intersensory differences in temporal judgment. Percept. mot. Skills, 1959, 9, 252.
10.
HirshI. J.BilgerR. C.DeatherageB. H.The effect of auditory and visual background on apparent duration. Amer. J. Psychol., 1956, 69, 561–574.
11.
OwenD. H.BrownD. R.Physical correlates of tactual pattern discrimination. Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Assn meetings in Chicago, April, 1965.
