Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33083992›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

The role of Weber's law in human time perception.

Andrew Haigh, Deborah Apthorp, Lewis A Bizo

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew HaighSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia. ahaigh3@une.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4117-3421
Deborah ApthorpSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Lewis A BizoSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Australian National University · AUUniversity of New England · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Weber's law predicts that stimulus sensitivity will increase proportionally with increases in stimulus intensity. Does this hold for the stimulus of time - specifically, duration in the milliseconds to seconds range? There is conflicting evidence on the relationship between temporal sensitivity and duration. Weber's law predicts a linear relationship between sensitivity and duration on interval timing tasks, while two alternative models predict a reverse J-shaped and a U-shaped relationship. Based on previous research, we hypothesised that temporal sensitivity in humans would follow a U-shaped function, increasing and then decreasing with increases in duration, and that this model would provide a better statistical fit to the data than the reverse-J or the simple Weber's Law model. In a two-alternative forced-choice interval comparison task, 24 participants made duration judgements about six groups of auditory intervals between 100 and 3,200 ms. Weber fractions were generated for each group of intervals and plotted against time to generate a function describing sensitivity to the stimulus of duration. Although the sensitivity function was slightly concave, and the model describing a U-shaped function gave the best fit to the data, the increase in the model fit was not sufficient to warrant the extra free parameter in the chosen model. Further analysis demonstrated that Weber's law itself provided a better description of sensitivity to changes in duration than either of the two models tested.

Indexed as

Time PerceptionHumansHuman time perceptionScalar propertyWeber’s law

Identifiers

PMID33083992
OpenAlexW3094057112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.