The Effects of Visual Movement on Beat-Based vs. Duration-Based Temporal Perception

It is known that moving visual stimuli (bouncing balls) have an advantage over static visual ones (flashes) in sensorimotor synchronization, such that the former match auditory beeps in driving synchronization while the latter do not. This occurs in beat-based synchronization but not in beatbased purely perceptual tasks, suggesting that the advantage is action-specific. The main goal of this study was to test the advantage of moving over static visual stimuli in a different perceptual timing system – duration-based perception – to determine whether the advantage is action-specific in a broad sense, i.e., if it excludes both beat-based and duration-based perception. We asked a group of participants to perform different tasks with three stimulus types: auditory beeps, visual bouncing balls (moving) and visual flashes (static). First, participants performed a duration-based perception task in which they judged whether intervals were speeding up or slowing down; then they did a synchronization task with isochronous sequences; finally, they performed a beat-based perception task in which they judged whether sequences sounded right or wrong. Bouncing balls outperformed flashes and matched beeps in synchronization. In the duration-based perceptual task, beeps, balls and flashes were equivalent, but in beat-based perception beeps outperformed balls and flashes. Our findings suggest that the advantage of moving over static visual stimuli is grounded on action rather than perception in a broad sense, in that it is absent in both beat-based and duration-based perception.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Beat cues facilitate time estimation at longer intervals

IntroductionTime perception in humans can be relative (beat-based) or absolute (duration-based). Although the classic view in the field points to different neural substrates underlying beat-based vs. duration-based mechanisms, recent neuroimaging evidence provided support to a unified model wherein these two systems overlap. In line with this, previous research demonstrated that internalized beat cues benefit motor reproduction of longer intervals (> 5.5 s) by reducing underestimation, but little is known about this effect on pure perceptual tasks. The present study was designed to investigate whether and how interval estimation is modulated by available beat cues.MethodsTo that end, we asked 155 participants to estimate auditory intervals ranging from 500 ms to 10 s, while manipulating the presence of cues before the interval, as well as the reinforcement of these cues by beat-related interference within the interval (vs. beat-unrelated and no interference).ResultsBeat cues aided time estimation depending on interval duration: for intervals longer than 5 s, estimation was better in the cue than in the no-cue condition. Specifically, the levels of underestimation decreased in the presence of cues, indicating that beat cues had a facilitating effect on time perception very similar to the one observed previously for time production.DiscussionInterference had no effects, suggesting that this manipulation was not effective. Our findings are consistent with the idea of cooperation between beat- and duration-based systems and suggest that this cooperation is quite similar across production and perception