Results of Experiment 2.

<p>Panel A shows that the subjective duration was longer (the point of subjective equality was shorter) for novel images and lagged repeats (Lagged Rep.) than for immediate repeats (Imm. Rep); lagged repeats and novel images did not differ. The difference limen (the precision of temporal discrimination) did not differ between conditions. Panel B shows the positive across-participant correlation between temporal discrimination and the size of the repetition effect (the difference between the PSE for immediate repetitions and the PSE for novel stimuli). The pattern remained when the outlying participants with very poor discrimination were excluded. Error bars show plus/minus one SEM, calculated separately for each data point; these provide no indication of the significance of differences between conditions.</p

Results of Experiment 4.

<p>Mean temporal productions were longer for novel stimuli, which would usually be taken to indicate shorter subjective duration for these items – contrary to the results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3A. If the difference between novel stimuli and repeats reflected a difference in the rate of an internal pacemaker then the effect would become more pronounced at longer durations. In fact, the effect of repetition was independent of duration – and inspection of the figure suggests that, if anything, the difference between conditions is smaller at longer durations. Error bars show plus/minus one SEM, calculated separately for each data point. Again, these provide no indication of the significance of differences between conditions.</p

Results of Experiments 3A and 3B.

<p>Panel A shows the results of Experiment 3A, which used category judgment. Novel stimuli were judged to last longer than immediate repeats. Panel B shows the results of a temporal production task. Productions were longer for the novel images, which would usually be taken to indicate <i>shorter</i> subjective duration – in contradistinction to the results from the category judgment paradigm. The discrepancy between Panels A and B suggests that temporal production may be a poor index of subjective duration. Error bars show plus/minus one SEM, calculated separately for each data point. Again, these provide no indication of the significance of differences between conditions.</p

Trial structure and results of Experiment 1.

<p>Panel A shows the events on each trial, which began with a blank screen for 1000 ms. Participants judged whether the second image was shown for more or less time than the first. On repeat trials, the images were identical; on novel trials the images were different. Panel B shows the results. The point of subjective equality (PSE) was greater for repeated stimuli, indicating shorter subjective duration; repetition produced no discernible effect on the difference limen (DL), a measure of temporal discrimination. Error bars show plus/minus one SEM, calculated separately for each data point. Note that for a within-subject design such as this, these error bars provide no indication of the significance of differences between conditions <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0019815#pone.0019815-Loftus1" target="_blank">[51]</a>.</p

Results of the TES analysis for each of eighteen articles in <i>Science</i>.

<p>Results of the TES analysis for each of eighteen articles in <i>Science</i>.</p

Statistical properties, hypotheses, and estimated probabilities of success for a set of five experiments.

<p>Statistical properties, hypotheses, and estimated probabilities of success for a set of five experiments.</p

Mean responses for Experiment 1c.

<p>Duration estimates are in seconds. Dec = Decelerating; Acc = Accelerating.</p

Bayes factors for the duration estimates of Experiments 1a-3.

<p>The Bayes factor is the probability of the observed data under the null hypothesis divided by the probability of the data under the distribution of alternative hypotheses specified by the Zellner-Siow <i>g</i> prior. Values greater than 1 indicate support for the null hypothesis that there is no effect of temporal structure on duration estimates. Values greater than 10 are often labelled “strong” evidence for the null; values greater than 30 are “very strong” evidence <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0059847#pone.0059847-Wagenmakers1" target="_blank">[48]</a>.</p

Effect sizes for all studies.

<p>The and columns show the effect sizes for the effect of temporal structure on duration estimate in each experiment/condition. The effects for the prospective and retrospective judgment data from Experiments 1c and 2 have been analyzed separately, so each analysis is based on a one-way design and the partial eta-squared values shown here are identical to eta-squared. Note also that the calculation of omega-squared assumes a balanced design, but there were slightly unequal cell-sizes in Experiment 3. The last 3 columns show the standardized differences between means <i>g</i>* <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0059847#pone.0059847-Hedges1" target="_blank">[64]</a> calculated using the metafor package for R <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0059847#pone.0059847-Viechtbauer1" target="_blank">[46]</a>. Acc = accelerating, Dec = Decelerating; Con = Constant-rate.</p