During a baseline trial, participants attempted to produce a 60-sec. interval while working at either a simple tracing task or others that involved mirror-tracing. Subsequent practice with the assigned task, expected to reduce the need for allocation of attention to mirror-tracing for those groups, produced predictable effects on a second trial of duration producing. Those performing mirror-tracing reduced production rimes on the postpractice trial, while those performing simple tracing showed no change after practice. These results are interpreted within the attentional allocation model of estimation of prospective duration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurnsideW. (1971) Judgement of short intervals while performing mathematical tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 404–406.
2.
EysenckM. W. (1982) Attention and arousal. New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
SawyerT. F.MeyersP. J.HuserS. J. (1994) Contrasting task demands alter the perceived duration of brief time intervals. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 649–657.
4.
SmithN. C. (1969) The effect on time estimation of increasing the complexity of a cognitive task. Journal of General Psychology, 81, 231–235.
5.
ZakayD. (1989) Subjective time and attentional allocation: An integrated model of time estimation. In LevinI.ZakayD. (Eds.), Time and human cognition: A life-span perspective. New York: Elsevier Science. Pp. 365–397.
6.
ZakayD. (1993) Time estimation methods—do they influence prospective duration estimates?Perception, 22, 91–101.
7.
ZakayD.BlockR. A. (1998) New perspective on prospective time estimation. In DeKeyserV.d'YdewalleG.VandierendonckA. (Eds.), Time and the dynamic control of behavior. Seatde, WA: Hogrefe & Huber. Pp. 129–141.
8.
ZakayD.NitzanD.GlicksohnJ. (1983) The influence of task difficulty and external tempo on subjective time estimation. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 451–456.
