Relationships between 84 field-dependent subjects and 84 field-independent subjects, posture, and judgment of duration of time were examined. An analysis of variance yielded no significant difference between the two groups of subjects in the judgment of a 40-sec. interval while in the standing, sitting, or horizontal postures or in the comparison of the three postures. Mean judgments of durations became larger from standing to sitting to horizontal postures and over trials for the three postures. It was suggested that the lengthening of the judgment of the 40-sec. interval could be related to a decrease in kinesthetic stimulation with a resultant increase in muscular relaxation which led to a decrease in vigilance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerdachE.BakanP.Body position and the free recall of early memories. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1967, 4, 101–102.
2.
BoringE. G.LangfieldH. S.WeldH. P. (Eds.) Foundations of psychology. New York: Wiley, 1948.
3.
CabeP.Note on response sets on the Rod-and-frame Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 94.
4.
CollettB. A.A study of the relationship between variation in body temperature, perceived duration and perceived personal space. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York Univer., 1972.
5.
DennerB.WapnerS.McFarlandJ. H.WernerH.Rhythmic activity and the perception of time. American Journal of Psychology, 1963, 76, 287–292.
6.
DownsF.Bed rest and sensory disturbances. American Journal of Nursing, 1974, 74, 434–438.
7.
FineB. J.DanforthA. V.Field-dependence, extraversion and perception of the vertical: Empirical and theoretical perspectives of the Rod-and-frame Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1975, 40, 683.
8.
JacobsonE.Progressive relaxation: A physiological and clinical investigation of muscular states and their significance in psychology and medical practice. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1970.
9.
KleinG. S.Perception, motives, and personality. New York: Knopf, 1970.
10.
LeidermanP. H.Imagery and sensory deprivation, an experimental study. Technical Report MRL-TDR62-28, Contract No. AF 33 (616)-6110, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 1962.
11.
LesterG.The Rod-and-frame Test: Some comments on methodology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 1307.
12.
LesterG.Comparison of five methods of presenting the Rod-and-frame Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 29, 147.
13.
MorantR. B.AronoffJ.Starting position, adaptation, and visual framework as influencing the perception of verticality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 71, 684–686.
14.
NewmanM. A.An investigation of the relationship between gait tempo and time perception. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York Univer., 1971.
15.
OltmanP. K.A portable rod-and-frame apparatus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 503–506.
16.
SilvermanA. J.CohenS. I.ShmavonianB. M.GreenbergG.Psychophysiological investigations in sensory deprivation: The body-field dimension. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1961, 23, 381–382.
17.
SmithM. J.An investigation of changes in judgment of duration with different patterns of auditory information. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York Univer., 1974.
SturtM.The psychology of time. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1925.
20.
WarmJ. S.SmithR. P.CaldwellL. S.Effects of induced muscle tension on judgment of time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 25, 153–160.
21.
WernerH.WapnerS.Experiments on sensory tonic field theory of perception: IV. Effect of initial position of a rod on apparent verticality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1952, 43, 68–74.
22.
WitkinH. A.LewisH. B.HertzmanM.MachoverK.MeissnerP. B.WapnerS.Personality through perception. New York: Harper, 1954.
23.
ZubekJ. P.MacNeillM.Effects of immobilization: Behavioral and EEG changes. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1966, 20, 316–336.
