RT Journal Article
T1 Response errors explain the failure of independent-channels models of perception of temporal order
A1 García Pérez, Miguel A.
A1 Alcalá Quintana, Rocío
AB Independent-channels models of perception of temporal order (also referred to as threshold models or perceptual latency models) have been ruled out because two formal properties of these models (monotonicity and parallelism) are not borne out by data from ternary tasks in which observers must judge whether stimulus A was presented before, after, or simultaneously with stimulus B. These models generally assume that observed responses are authentic indicators of unobservable judgments, but blinks, lapses of attention, or errors in pressing the response keys (maybe, but not only, motivated by time pressure when reaction times are being recorded) may make observers misreport their judgments or simply guess a response. We present an extension of independent-channels models that considers response errors and we show that the model produces psychometric functions that do not satisfy monotonicity and parallelism. The model is illustrated by fitting it to data from a published study in which the ternary task was used. The fitted functions describe very accurately the absence of monotonicity and parallelism shown by the data. These characteristics of empirical data are thus consistent with independent-channels models when response errors are taken into consideration. The implications of these results for the analysis and interpretation of temporal order judgment data are discussed.
SN 1664-1078
YR 2012
FD 2012
LK https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/44901
UL https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/44901
LA eng
NO Allan, L. G. (1975). The relationship between judgments of successiveness and judgments of order. Percept. Psychophys. 18, 29–36.CrossRef Full Text.Collett, D. (2003). Modelling Binary Data, 2nd Edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Colonius, H., and Diederich, A. (2011). Computing an optimal time window of audiovisual integration in focused attention tasks: illustrated by studies on effect of age and prior knowledge. Exp. Brain Res. 212, 327–337.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextDiederich, A., and Colonius, H. (2011). “Modeling multisensory processes in saccadic responses: time-window-of-integration model,” in The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes, eds M. M. Murray and M. T. Wallace (Boca Raton: CRC Press), 253–276.Estes, W. K. (1956). The problem of inference from curves based on group data. Psychol. Bull. 53, 134–140.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextEstes, W. K., and Maddox, W. T. (2005). Risks of drawing inferences about cognitive processes from model fits to individual versus average performance. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12, 403–408.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextFujisaki, W., and Nishida, S. (2009). Audio–tactile superiority over visuo–tactile and audio–visual combinations in the temporal resolution of synchrony perception. Exp. Brain Res. 198, 245–259.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextGarcía-Pérez, M. A. (1994). Parameter estimation and goodness-of-fit testing in multinomial models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 47, 247–282.CrossRef Full TextGarcía-Pérez, M. A., and Alcalá-Quintana, R. (2005). Sampling plans for fitting the psychometric function. Span. J. Psychol. 8, 256–289.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full TextGarcía-Pérez, M. A., and Alcalá-Quintana, R. (2010a). The difference model with guessing explains interval bias in two-alternative forced-choice detection procedures. J. Sens. Stud. 25, 876–898.CrossRef Full TextGarcía-Pérez, M. A., and Alcalá-Quintana, R. (2010b). Reminder and 2AFC tasks provide similar estimates of the difference limen: a reanalysis of data from Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and a discussion of Ulrich and Vorberg (2009). Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 1155–1178. [A correction has been published: Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2012, 74, 489–492.]CrossRef Full TextGarcía-Pérez, M. A., and Alcalá-Quintana, R. (2011). Interval bias in 2AFC detection tasks: sorting out the artifacts. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 73, 2332–2352.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextGarcía-Pérez, M. A., and Núñez-Antón, V. (2001). Small-sample comparisons for power-divergence goodness-of-fit statistics for symmetric and skewed simple null hypotheses. J. Appl. Stat. 28, 855–874.CrossRef Full TextGarcía-Pérez, M. A., and Núñez-Antón, V. (2004). Small-sample comparisons for goodness-of-fit statistics in one-way multinomials with composite hypotheses. J. Appl. Stat. 31, 161–181.CrossRef Full TextHarrar, V., and Harris, L. R. (2008). The effect of exposure to asynchronous audio, visual, and tactile stimulus combinations on the perception of simultaneity. Exp. Brain Res. 186, 517–524.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextHeath, R. A. (1984). Response time and temporal order judgement in vision. Aust. J. Psychol. 36, 21–34.CrossRef Full TextJaskowski, P. (1991). Two-stage model for order discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 50, 76–82.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextJaskowski, P. (1993). Selective attention and temporal-order judgment. Perception 22, 681–689.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextKingdom, F. A. A., and Prins, N. (2010). Psychophysics: A Practical Introduction. London: Academic Press.Kristofferson, A. B., and Allan, L. G. (1973). “Successiveness and duration discrimination,” in Attention and Performance IV, ed. S. Kornblum (New York: Academic Press), 737–749.Lawrence, M. A. (2010). Estimating the probability and fidelity of memory. Behav. Res. Methods 42, 957–968.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextLin, L. I.-K. (1989). A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45, 255–268.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextNicholls, M. E. R., Lew, M., Loetscher, T., and Yates, M. J. (2011). The importance of response type to the relationship between temporal order and numerical magnitude. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 73, 1604–1613.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextNumerical Algorithms Group. (1999). NAG Fortran Library Manual, Mark 19. Oxford: Numerical Algorithms Group.Occelli, V., Spence, C., and Zampini, M. (2011). Audiotactile interactions in temporal perception. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18, 429–454.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextSchneider, K. A., and Bavelier, D. (2003). Components of visual prior entry. Cogn. Psychol. 47, 333–366.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextShore, D. I., Spry, E., and Spence, C. (2002). Confusing the mind by crossing the hands. Cogn. Brain Res. 14, 153–163.CrossRef Full TextSpence, C., Baddeley, R., Zampini, M., James, R., and Shore, D. I. (2003). Multisensory temporal order judgments: when two locations are better than one. Percept. Psychophys. 65, 318–328.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextSpence, C., and Parise, C. (2010). Prior-entry: a review. Conscious. Cogn. 19, 364–379.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextSternberg, S., and Knoll, R. L. (1973). “The perception of temporal order: fundamental issues and a general model,” in Attention and Performance IV, ed. S. Kornblum (New York: Academic Press), 629–685.Stetson, C., Cui, X., Montague, P. R., and Eagleman, D. M. (2006). Motor-sensory recalibration leads to an illusory reversal of action and sensation. Neuron 51, 651–659.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextStone, J. V., Hunkin, N. M., Porrill, J., Wood, R., Keeler, V., Beanland, M., Port, M., and Porter, N. R. (2001). When is now? Perception of simultaneity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 268, 31–38.CrossRef Full TextSwanson, W. H., and Birch, E. E. (1992). Extracting thresholds from noisy psychophysical data. Percept. Psychophys. 51, 409–422.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextUlrich, R. (1987). Threshold models of temporal-order judgments evaluated by a ternary response task. Percept. Psychophys. 42, 224–239.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Textvan Eijk, R. L. J., Kohlrausch, A., Juola, J. F., and van de Par, S. (2008). Audiovisual synchrony and temporal order judgments: effects of experimental method and stimulus type. Percept. Psychophys. 70, 955–968.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full Textvan Eijk, R. L. J., Kohlrausch, A., Juola, J. F., and van de Par, S. (2010). Temporal order judgment criteria are affected by synchrony judgment sensitivity. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 2227–2235.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextVatakis, A., Navarra, J., Soto-Faraco, S., and Spence, C. (2008). Audiovisual temporal adaptation of speech: temporal order versus simultaneity judgments. Exp. Brain Res. 185, 521–529.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextVroomen, J., and Keetels, M. (2010). Perception of intersensory synchrony: a tutorial review. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 871–874.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextWichmann, F. A., and Hill, N. J. (2001). The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1293–1313.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextYates, M. J., and Nicholls, M. E. R. (2009). Somatosensory prior entry. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 71, 847–859.Pubmed Abstract | Pubmed Full Text | CrossRef Full TextYates, M. J., and Nicholls, M. E. R. (2011). Somatosensory prior entry assessed with temporal order judgments and simultaneity judgments. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 73, 1586–1603.
NO Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
DS Docta Complutense
RD 30 abr 2024