DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14947/psychono.34.7
Effects of sensory modality and retention delay on time reproduction performance
Riku Asaoka* and Jiro Gyoba
Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University
Recent studies have proposed that there exist components of memory specific to each sensory modality for time perception. Moreover, several studies have suggested that memory for duration is more efficient and robust for visual stimuli than auditory stimuli, while a majority of studies reported auditory dominance over vision for tempo-ral perception. The present study, using a time reproduction task with auditory, visual, and audio-visual stimuli, test-ed memory components by manipulating retention delays between the end of the target presentation and the begin-ning of reproduction. If vision dominates sensory specific memory for duration, performance with visual stimuli should be more accurate and stable under longer delays than performance in other modality conditions. Results showed that reproduced durations were longer and more unstable under longer delays than shorter delays in all mo-dalities. Moreover, we found that auditory stimuli were reproduced more stably and for longer than visual stimuli. These findings did not support the existence of sense-modality specific memory components or visual dominance. Keywords: time perception, memory for duration, scalar expectancy model, multisensory processing
Scalar Expectancy Theory (SET) is one of the leading theo-ries of time perception (e.g., Gibbon, Church, & Meck, 1984). This model assumes that the fundamental mechanism of time perception consists of a single clock-like counter mechanism, together with short-term or reference memory processes and decision strategies. According to SET, these components per-form several processes related to time perception, such as measuring, encoding, storing, remembering, and using time perceptions to make behavioral decisions. Although the idea that time perception relies on only one such clock-like mecha-nism has dominated the field for a long time (see Grondin, 2010 for a review), several studies comparing time perception in different sensory modalities have recently proposed that there are separate clock-like mechanisms specific to sensory modalities. For example, it is well known that auditory stimuli are perceived as longer than visual ones of the same objective duration (Takahashi & Watanabe, 2012; Walker & Scott, 1981; Wearden, Edwards, Fakhri, & Percival, 1998), and that dura-tion discriminadura-tion performance is better for audidura-tion than vi-sion (Grondin, 1993; Klink, Montijn, & van Wezel, 2011). Moreover, there is neurophysiological evidence of modality-specific brain activity during timing tasks (Bueti, Bahrami, & Walsh, 2008; Jantzen, Steinberg, & Kelso, 2005).
Aside from the clock-like mechanism, the memory compo-nent associated with time perception has also been assumed to be unitary, and hence to be where all temporal information is stored (Grondin, 2005; Penney, Gibbon, & Meck, 2000). How-ever, several recent studies have shown it to be possible that there are also memory components specific to sensory modal-ities (Gamache & Grondin, 2010; Ogden, Wearden, & Jones, 2008, 2010; Rattat & Picard, 2012; Takahashi & Watanabe, 2012). Rattat and Picard (2012) asked their participants to judge whether the duration of two stimuli presented either vi-sually or auditorily and separated by 8-s intervals were equal or different. Their results demonstrated that performing an ar-ticulatory suppression task during the intervals decreased par-ticipant’s ability to accurately judge auditory durations but not visual ones, while performing a visuospatial tracking task dur-ing the intervals decreased performance for visual durations but not auditory ones.
Many studies have reported that audition dominates vision for various types of temporal perceptions (Burr, Banks, & Morrone, 2009; Morein-Zamir, Soto-Faraco, & Kingstone, 2003; Penney et al., 2000; Welch & Warren, 1980). For exam-ple, the perceived duration of presentation of audio-visual stimuli tends to be biased towards the duration of the auditory stimulus when the auditory and visual stimuli are presented for different durations (Klink et al., 2011). However, Ogden et al. (2008, 2010) examined effects of multiple auditory or visual stimuli and a delay period on the task in which participants Copyright 2015. The Japanese Psychonomic Society. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, Graduate
School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, 27–1 Kawa-uchi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980–8576, Japan. E-mail: R.Asaoka@ dc.tohoku.ac.jp
judged whether two durations were equal or different. They found that the delay period influenced the participant’s per-formance more detrimentally when multiple auditory stimuli were presented than when multiple visual stimuli were pre-sented, suggesting that memory for duration was more effi-cient and robust for visual stimuli than for auditory stimuli. They concluded that the main reasons for this result were un-clear, but suggested, in part, visual dominance for temporal processing.
As mentioned above, several studies have proposed sensory modality-specific memory components, and visual dominance in time perception. The present study investigated whether the duration of targets presented in different modalities would be stored in separable areas of memory, and whether memory performance for duration would be more efficient for visual stimuli than for auditory stimuli. While visual dominance for time perception has been demonstrated mostly using two-al-ternative forced-choice task (longer or shorter, different or
equal), we tried to examine this point by using time
reproduc-tion task: a target durareproduc-tion is presented in terms of a continu-ous sound or two flashes, and participants reproduce the per-ceived duration of the target stimulus. This method is one of classically used measurements for time perception, which en-ables us to calculate both accuracy and stability in time per-ception (e.g., Franssen, Vandierendonck, & van Hiel, 2006; Gamache & Grondin, 2010; Walker & Scott, 1981). In order to investigate memory components, the delay between the end of the target presentation and the beginning of reproduction was varied. Reproductions following longer delays are assumed to better reflect the influence of memory components (Gamache & Grondin, 2010). If memory processes for duration are mo-dality-specific, and memory of the duration of visual stimuli is superior to that of auditory stimuli, participant’s performance with visual stimuli should be better than with auditory stimuli for longer delays. In contrast, if memory processes for dura-tion are not modality-specific, performance should be similar in all delay conditions.
Method Participants
Fourteen Tohoku University graduate and undergraduate students (nine women and five men) took part in the experi-ment. Their ages ranged from 19 to 25 (M＝22.07, SD＝1.49). The written consent of each participant was obtained prior to participation. All participants reported having normal or
cor-rected-to-normal vision and normal audition, and did not know the purpose of the experiment.
Stimuli and Apparatus
Stimuli were generated and controlled by E-Prime 2.0 (Psy-chology Software Tools Inc., USA) and a PC (Model DELL DI-MENSION 8300, Dell computers, OS: Windows XP, Micro-soft). Visual stimuli consisted of 5 cm black squares that appeared on a gray background at the center of a 19-in CRT monitor (Sony Trinitron Multiscan G420, pixel resolution 1024×768 and a refresh rate of approximately 60 Hz). Audito-ry stimuli were 440-Hz sinusoidal tones with an intensity of 70 dB SPLs and onset and offset ramps of 5 ms each, were created using Audacity, and were conveyed through an audio interface (UA-25EX, Roland) and headphones (HDA200, Sennheiser). Participants viewed the monitor binocularly from a distance of roughly 60 cm, using a chinrest.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted in a dark room without visi-ble clocks or timekeeping devices. The participants initiated a trial by pressing the enter key. Immediately after the key was pressed, the target was presented in one of three modalities: visual (V condition), auditory (A condition), or audio-visual (AV condition). Target duration was randomly chosen from seven durations (from 1.2 to 8.4 s in 1.2 s steps). In the audio-visual condition, the auditory and audio-visual stimuli were simulta-neously presented for the same duration. Following a blank screen presented for 1, 4, or 8 s (PRD: pre-reproduction de-lay), a reproduction stimulus was automatically presented in the same modality as the target. Participants pressed the spacebar when they judged that the reproduction stimulus had been presented for the same duration as the target presented prior. The reproduction stimulus disappeared after the partici-pant pressed the space bar, completing the trial. Participartici-pants were instructed not to count seconds mentally during the ex-periment. The trial procedure is shown in Figure 1.
After 12 practice trials, each participant completed 252 tri-als (three modality conditions×three PRD conditions×seven target stimulus durations×four repetitions), over two ses-sions. Each session was divided into three blocks, one for each modality condition; one block consisted of 42 trials (three PRD conditions×seven target stimulus durations×two repe-titions). Block order was randomized across sessions and par-ticipants, and trial order was randomized across blocks and participants.
Data Analysis
We employed two measures as performance indices for the time reproduction task: Constant Error (CE＝reproduced du-ration–target duration) and Coefficient of Variation (CV＝ standard deviation/mean of reproduced duration). CE values quantified the size of error and systematic bias in reproduced durations. Negative values indicated that reproduced dura-tions were shorter than the target duration; positive values in-dicated that reproduced durations were longer than the target duration. CV values quantified the relative variations of distri-bution and may be assumed to reflect the sensitivity of the temporal system. These measures had the advantage of allow-ing the direct comparison of data taken from different target durations (Gamache & Grondin, 2010).
Results
Reproduced durations that exceeded 3 SDs over the mean in each duration or were less than 200 ms were excluded as
outliers. Total valid data were 98.5％ of obtained data. We cal-culated mean CEs and CVs for each modality and PRD condi-tion. These results were shown in Figure 2 (CE) and Figure 3 (CV). Then, a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted for modality (3 levels: auditory, visual, and audio-visual) and PRD (3 levels: 1, 4 and 8 s) on each dependent variable. In order to explore accuracy further, we used one-sample t-tests to compare the mean CE with 0 (the most accu-rate reproduction) in each condition (see Table 1).
Regarding CE, the main effects of modality and PRD were significant, but interaction effects were not significant (modal-ity: F(2, 26)＝3.90, p＜.05, η2
p＝.23; PRD: F(2, 26)＝14.69,
p＜.001, η2
p＝.53; interaction: F(4, 52)＝0.73, p＝0.57, η2p＝.05).
Ryan’s post hoc tests on the modality condition showed that the mean CE was greater in the A condition than in the V con-dition (p＜.05), indicating that reproduced auditory stimuli were longer than reproduced visual stimuli. Ryan’s post-hoc tests on the PRD condition showed that mean CEs were great-Figure 1. Schematic representation of the procedure of the experiment. The top, middle and bottom boards represent the
stream of Auditory (A), Visual (V), and Audio-Visual (AV) conditions, respectively. The target was presented for one of sev-en durations: 1.2, 2.4, 3.6, 4.8, 6.0, 7.2, or 8.4 s. The pre-reproduction delay was pressev-ented for one of three durations: 1, 4, or 8 s. The participants had to end the presentation of reproduction stimuli by pressing the Space bar when they judged that the reproduction duration equaled the target duration.
er in the 4-s and 8-s conditions than in the 1-s condition (ps＜.001), suggesting that reproduced durations were longer with longer PRDs. CE values closer to 0 (zero) indicate greater accuracy. Reproduced durations in all modality conditions were significantly shorter than 0 in the 1-s condition (all
ps＜.05, see Table 1). In contrast, in all modality conditions,
there were no significant differences between reproduced du-ration and 0 in the 4-s and 8-s conditions. These results indi-cated that lower accuracy in time perception was observed only under the shorter PRD condition irrespective of the mo-dality of the target stimulus.
Regarding CV, significant main effects were found for
mo-dality and PRD, but not for interaction effects (momo-dality:
F(2, 26)＝10.42, p＜.001, η2
p＝.44; PRD: F(2, 26)＝51.96,
p＜.001, η2
p＝.80; interaction: F(4, 52)＝0.95, p＝0.44, η2p＝.07).
Ryan’s post hoc tests on the modality condition showed that mean CVs were lower in the A and AV conditions than in the V condition, indicating that auditory and audio-visual time perception were more stable than visual time perception (ps＜.05). Ryan’s post hoc tests on the PRD condition revealed that mean CVs were significantly lower in the 1-s and 4-s con-ditions than in the 8-s condition, and lower in the 1-s condi-tion than in the 4-s condicondi-tion (ps＜.001).
Table 1.
The results of one-sample t-tests examining differences be-tween constant error of participants’ reproduction and 0 for each condition.
Condition
(Modality, PRD) Mean CE t value p value
A, 1 s −339.72 2.80 0.01 A, 4 s 107.62 1.16 0.27 A, 8 s 258.77 1.56 0.14 V, 1 s −293.12 3.77 0.00 V, 4 s 47.97 1.70 0.11 V, 8 s 145.48 0.27 0.79 AV, 1 s −482.69 2.27 0.04 AV, 4 s −186.18 0.44 0.66 AV, 8 s −32.72 0.85 0.41
A: Auditory condition; V: Visual condition; AV: Audio-Visual condition; PRD: Pre-Reproduction Delay; CE: Constant Error. Figure 2. Constant errors (CEs) in each modality and pre-reproduction delay condition. Error bars represent 95％
confi-dence levels (N＝14). A: Auditory condition; V: Visual condition; AV: Audio-Visual condition.
Figure 3. Coefficients of variations (CVs) in each mo-dality and pre-reproduction delay condition. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (N＝14). A: Auditory condition; V: Visual condition; AV: Audio-Visual condition.
Discussion
The present study examined the possibility of sense modali-ty-specific memory components and of visual dominance in memory of time, using reproduction method and manipulat-ing modality of stimulus presentation, target duration and re-production delay. The results showed that interaction effects between the modality and PRD conditions were not signifi-cant for the CE and CV indices, suggesting that both vision and audition are represented in the same component of mem-ory. Moreover, our results demonstrated that auditory and audio-visual time perception was more stable than visual time perception, and that accuracy was similar among modality conditions.
CE analysis showed that the reproduced durations of audi-tory stimuli were longer than that of visual stimuli. These re-sults were consistent with findings that indicate auditory stim-uli were perceived to be longer than visual stimstim-uli (Takahashi & Watanabe, 2012; Walker & Scott, 1981; Wearden et al., 1998), and that audio-visual stimuli were significantly per-ceived to be longer than visual stimuli, and, though not signif-icantly, shorter than auditory stimuli (Walker & Scott, 1981). These differences in perceived duration might be attributed to the speed of the clock-like mechanisms specific to each mo-dality. Several previous studies have proposed that the audito-ry clock may run faster than the visual clock, resulting in lon-ger perceived duration of auditory stimuli (Penney et al., 2000; Wearden et al., 1998). In addition, the existence of an audio-visual clock has been proposed, which is faster than the audio-visual clock but slower than the auditory clock, though the audio-visual clock rate cannot be distinguished from the auditory clock rate (Kilink et al., 2011; Wearden et al., 1998). Thus, the similar speeds of the auditory and audio-visual clock may ex-plain the similar CE values in the A and AV conditions in the present study.
Alternatively, it is also possible that both auditory and visual clocks would contribute to the perceived duration of audio-visual stimuli. When audio and audio-visual stimuli are presented simultaneously, both audio and visual clocks would start to run. Since generated pulses would be different between the two clocks due to slower speed for visual clock, there would be a possibility that the perceived duration of audio-visual stimuli may be determined by the average of pulses which both clocks generate. This idea could explain the results that audio-visual stimuli were perceived to be longer than visual stimuli and
shorter than auditory stimuli, though not significantly. How-ever, it is not statistically clear whether the perceived durations of audio-visual stimuli are determined by the average of audio and visual clocks or the one clock from the results of the pres-ent study. Further research will be necessary to clarify this point.
Concerning the influence of PRD on accuracy in perfor-mance of the time reproduction task, results of the one-sample
t-tests and 95％ confidence level confirmed that the CE was
significantly below 0 in all modality conditions only for the 1-s conditions, indicating that accuracy was better in the 4-s and 8-s conditions than in the 1-s condition (Figure 2). The lower accuracy in the 1-s condition may be explained in part by the serial order effect of time perception. When two stimuli are successively presented for the same objective duration, the du-ration of the second stimulus tends to be perceived as shorter than that for the first stimulus. The serial order effect has been shown to occur when the target duration is presented in visual or auditory modalities (Rose & Summers, 1995; ten Hoopen et al., 1995). Moreover, the size of the serial order effect has been demonstrated to decrease as the inter-stimulus interval be-tween the two sequential stimuli increases (Jamieson & Petru-sic, 1975; Schab & Crowder, 1988). Therefore, lower accuracy on the reproduction task would be observed only when the delay period was 1 s.
In contrast to the 1-s conditions, the present results showed that longer PRDs generated longer reproduced durations in all modality conditions. A similar finding has been reported by several previous studies (Gamache & Grondin, 2010; Grondin & Rammsayer, 2003). These authors have proposed that the main reason for this effect might be the assimilation effect or attention preparation. In the former account, the duration of PRD is assimilated into the duration of the target stimulus; therefore, the target stimulus tends to be perceived as longer with longer PRDs than shorter PRDs. In the latter account, during the longer PRD, the longer preparation increases atten-tion to the passage of time, resulting in longer reproduced du-rations, since attending to the passage of time increases per-ceived duration (Hicks, Miller, Gaes, & Bierman, 1977; Macar, Grondin, & Casini, 1994). These explanations may apply to the present results in the 4-s and 8-s conditions, where the se-rial order effect did not occur, because the delay period was relatively long, leading to longer reproduced durations.
CV analysis showed that duration reproduction was more stable in the A and AV conditions than in the V condition,
supporting previous studies (Gamache & Grondin, 2010; Wearden et al., 1998). There may be two possible explanations. Firstly, the perceived onsets and offsets of auditory stimuli may be temporally clearer than that of visual stimuli because the auditory system has high temporal resolution (Grondin, 2003; Welch & Warren, 1980). Wearden et al. (1998) have sug-gested that larger standard deviation in visual stimuli than in auditory stimuli is attributable to differential variability in the respective clocks. Latencies in clock startup and shutdown may be more stable for auditory stimuli than for visual stimuli, which could lead to higher stability for audition. Secondly, Ka-nai, Lloyd, Bueti, & Walsh (2011) have proposed that duration information may be encoded by the auditory system, and that visual inputs would be automatically encoded into an auditory representation. If such an encoding process occurs, the con-version of visual temporal information into auditory represen-tations would require some extra processes and loads. We as-sume that such additional processing would lead to lower stability of visual time perception. Based on the suggestion and the present findings, there would be a possibility that tem-poral information would be measured by each sensory modal-ity at first, then encoded and stored in the auditory modalmodal-ity system.
These assumptions should be carefully examined in future studies using both behavioral and neuroimaging measure-ments. For example, simple reaction time to visual and audito-ry stimuli may reflect the start latencies of each clock. Shibasa-ki and Masataka (2014) have found a significant positive relationship between reaction time and perceived duration of a red screen, in that subjects who reacted quickly to a red screen tended to overestimate its duration. Thus, if reaction times to target stimuli reflected the latencies until each clock generated pulses, reaction time variability should be smaller with auditory stimuli than with visual stimuli. On the other hand, although previous neuroimaging studies have shown that several brain regions contribute to time perception (the basal ganglia, cerebellum, and supplementary motor area; see Harrington, Haaland, & Hermanowicz, 1998; Ivry & Keele, 1989; Rao, Mayer, & Harrington, 2001; Shih, Kuo, Yeh, Tzeng, & Hsieh, 2009), little is known about the neural mechanisms for sensory-specific temporal memory systems or auditory storing systems. Therefore, neuroimaging studies using time reproduction tasks with various PRDs would be necessary to clarify these processes. In addition, in order to determine whether the memory component for time is unitary or
separa-ble, further behavioral and neuroimaging studies are neces-sary.
Limitation of the present study was that the participants were under resting conditions without any tasks during PRD. It has been suggested that time perception is mediated by pho-nological loop and the involvement of an active articulatory rehearsal process (Franssen et al., 2006). Therefore, it is possi-ble that the performance on time reproduction task would vary if participants perform some tasks during PRD. Future study will be necessary to investigate the effects of the partici-pant’s state during PRD on the performance on time repro-duction task using audio-visual stimuli.
In summary, the present study did not find evidence for modality-specific memory components, since interaction ef-fects between the modality and PRD conditions were not found. Moreover, visual stimuli were shown to be reproduced less stably than auditory stimuli, indicating auditory domi-nance in time reproduction tasks. Furthermore, auditory stim-uli were perceived to be longer than visual stimstim-uli. These re-sults support the idea that time perception uses different clocks depending on modality. In conclusion, the present study provides new results suggesting that both sense modali-ty-specific clock components and sense modality-nonspecific memory components are involved in time perception.
Acknowledgements
We are most grateful to the participants for their time and contribution. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and insightful comments and suggestions. This re-search was supported by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Re-search (C) (No. 26330306).
References
Bueti, D., Bahrami, B., & Walsh, V. (2008). Sensory and associ-ation cortex in time perception. Journal of Cognitive
Neuro-science, 20, 1054–1062.
Burr, D., Banks, M., & Morrone, M. C. (2009). Auditory domi-nance over vision in the perception of interval duration.
Experimental Brain Research, 198, 49–57.
Franssen, V., Vandierendonck, A., & van Hiel, A. (2006). Du-ration estimation and the phonological loop: Articulatory suppression and irrelevant sounds. Psychological Research, 70, 304–316.
Gamache, P. -L., & Grondin, S. (2010). Sensory-specific clock components and memory mechanism: Investigation with parallel timing. European Journal of neuroscience, 31, 1908– 1914.
Gibbon, J., Church, R. M., & Meck, W. H. (1984). Scalar tim-ing in memory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 423, 52–77.
Grondin, S. (1993). Duration discrimination of empty and filled intervals marked by auditory and visual signals.
Perception, & Psychophysics, 54, 383–394.
Grondin, S. (2003). Sensory modalities and temporal process-ing. In H. Helfrich (Ed.), Time and mind II: Information
processing perspectives. Germany: Hogrefe & Huber, pp. 61–
77.
Grondin, S. (2005). Overloading temporal memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-mance, 31, 869–879.
Grondin, S. (2010). Timing and time perception: A review of recent behavioral and neuroscience findings and theoretical directions. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 561– 582.
Grondin, S., & Rammsayer, T. H. (2003). Variable foreperiods and temporal discrimination. The Quarterly Journal of
Ex-perimental Psychology, 56, 731–765.
Harrington, D. L., Haaland, K. Y., & Hermanowicz, N. (1998). Temporal processing in the basal ganglia. Neuropsychology, 12, 3–12.
Hicks, R. E., Miller, G. W., Gaes, G., & Bierman, K. (1977). Concurrent processing demands and the experience of time-in-passing. The American Journal of Psychology, 90, 431–446.
Ivry, R. B., & Keele, S. W. (1989). Timing functions of the cere-bellum. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 136–152. Jamieson, D. J., & Petrusic, W. M. (1975). Pairing effects and
time-order errors in duration discrimination. Perception &
Psychophysics, 18, 107–113.
Jantzen, K. J., Steinberg, F. L., & Kelso, J. A. S. (2005). Func-tional MRI reveals the existence of modality and coordina-tion-dependent timing networks. NeuroImage, 25, 1031– 1042.
Kanai, R., Lloyd, H., Bueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2011). Modality-independent role of the primary auditory cortex in time es-timation. Experimental Brain Research, 209, 465–471. Klink, P. C., Montijn, J. S., & van Wezel, R. J. A. (2011).
Cross-modal duration perception involves perceptual grouping, temporal ventriloquism, and variable internal clock.
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 219–236.
Macar, F., Grondin, S., & Casini, L. (1994). Controlled atten-tion sharing influences time estimaatten-tion. Memory &
Cogni-tion, 22, 673–686.
Morein-Zamir, S., Soto-Faraco, S., & Kingstone, A. (2003). Auditory capture of vision: Examining temporal
ventrilo-quism. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 154–163.
Ogden, R. S., Wearden, J. H., & Jones, L. A. (2008). The re-membrance of times past: Interference in temporal refer-ence memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 34, 1524–1544.
Ogden, R. S., Wearden, J. H., & Jones, L. A. (2010). Are memo-ries for duration modality specific. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 63, 65–80.
Penney, T. B., Gibbon, J., & Meck, W. H. (2000). Differential effects of auditory and visual signals on clock speed and temporal memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Hu-man Perception and PerforHu-mance, 26, 1770–1787.
Rao, S. M., Mayer, A. R., & Harrington, D. L. (2001). The evolution of brain activation during temporal processing.
Nature Neuroscience, 4, 317–323.
Rattat, A., & Picard, D. (2012). Short-term memory for audito-ry and visual durations: Evidence for selective interference effects. Psychological Research, 76, 32–44.
Rose, D., & Summers, J. (1995). Duration illusions in a train of visual stimuli. Perception, 24, 1177–1187.
Schab, F. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1988). The role succession in temporal cognition: Is the time-order error a recency effect of memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 233–242. Shibasaki, M., & Masataka, N. (2014). The color red distorts
time perception for men, but not for women. Scientific
Re-ports, 4, 5899.
Shih, L.Y., Kuo, W. J., Yeh, T. C., Tzeng, O. J., & Hsieh, J. C. (2009). Common neural mechanisms for explicit timing in the sub-second range. NeuroReport, 20, 897–901.
Takahashi, K., & Watanabe, K. (2012). Short-term memory for event duration: Modality specificity and goal dependency.
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 1623–1631.
ten Hoopen, G., Hartsuiker, R., Sasaki, T., Nakajima, Y., Tana-ka, M., & Tsumura, T. (1995). Auditory isochrony: Time shrinking and temporal patterns. Perception, 24, 577–593. Walker, J. T., & Scott, K. J. (1981). Auditory̶visual conflicts
in the perceived duration of lights, tones and gaps. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-mance, 7, 1327–1339.
Wearden, J. H., Edwards, H., Fakhri, M., & Percival, A. (1998). Why “sounds are judged longer than lights”: Application of a model of the internal clock in humans. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 97–120.
Welch, R. B., & Warren, D. H. (1980). Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 638–667.
