4.2 Article

Good vibrations: Human interval timing in the vibrotactile modality

期刊

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 62, 期 11, 页码 2171-2186

出版社

PSYCHOLOGY PRESS
DOI: 10.1080/17470210902782200

关键词

Time perception; Difference threshold; Modality differences; Clock speed; Vibrotactile

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article reports a detailed examination of timing in the vibrotactile modality and comparison with that of visual and auditory modalities. Three experiments investigated human timing in the vibrotactile modality. In Experiment 1, a staircase threshold procedure with a standard duration of 1,000ms revealed a difference threshold of 160.35ms for vibrotactile stimuli, which was significantly higher than that for auditory stimuli (103.25ms) but not significantly lower than that obtained for visual stimuli (196.76ms). In Experiment 2, verbal estimation revealed a significant slope difference between vibrotactile and auditory timing, but not between vibrotactile and visual timing. That is, both vibrations and lights were judged as shorter than sounds, and this comparative difference was greater at longer durations than at shorter ones. In Experiment 3, performance on a temporal generalization task showed characteristics consistent with the predications of scalar expectancy theory (SET: Gibbon, 1977) with both mean accuracy and scalar variance exhibited. The results were modelled using the modified Church and Gibbon model (MCG; derived by Wearden, 1992, from Church Gibbon 1982). The model was found to give an excellent fit to the data, and the parameter values obtained were compared with those for visual and auditory temporal generalization. The pattern of results suggest that timing in the vibrotactile modality conforms to SET and that the internal clock speed for vibrotactile stimuli is significantly slower than that for auditory stimuli, which is logically consistent with the significant differences in difference threshold that were obtained.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据