ArticlePsychological research2020
Perceived duration of auditory oddballs: test of a novel pitch-window hypothesis.
Article in Psychological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interval timing in a hierarchical violation-of-expectation task: Dissociable effects of local and global predictions.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unexpected oddball stimuli embedded within a series of otherwise identical standard stimuli tend to be overestimated in duration. The present study tested a pitch-window explanation of the auditory oddball effect on perceived duration in two experiments. For both experiments, participants listened to isochronous sequences consisting of a series of 400 Hz fixed-duration standard tones with an embedded oddball tone that differed in pitch and judged whether the variable-duration oddball was shorter or longer than the standard. Participants were randomly assigned to either a wide or narrow pitch-window condition, in which an anchor oddball was presented with high likelihood at either a far pitch (850 Hz) or a near pitch (550 Hz), respectively. In both pitch-window conditions, probe oddballs were presented with low likelihood at pitches that were either within or outside the frequency range established by the standard and anchor tones. Identical 700 Hz probe oddballs were perceived to be shorter in duration in the wide pitch-window condition than in the narrow pitch-window condition (Experiments 1 and 2), even when matching the overall frequency range of oddballs across conditions (Experiment 2). Results support the proposed pitch-window hypothesis, but are inconsistent with both enhanced processing and predictive coding accounts of the oddball effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30535860What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.