ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2023
Can't catch the beat: Failure to find simple repetition effects in three types of temporal judgements.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal sensitivity and perceived timing in unimodal and crossmodal isochronous sequences.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Psychometric functions for temporal discrimination: Duration or log duration?Behavior research methods · 2026Article
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
More experience results in better performance, usually. In most tasks, the more chances to learn we have, the better we are at it. This does not always appear to be the case in time perception however. In the current article, we use three different methods to investigate the role of the number of standard example durations presented on performance on three timing tasks: rhythm continuation, deviance detection, and final stimulus duration judgement. In Experiments 1a and 1b, rhythms were produced with the same accuracy whether one, two, three, or four examples of the critical duration were presented. In Experiment 2, participants were required to judge which of four stimuli had a different duration from the other three. This judgement did not depend on which of the four stimuli was the deviant one. In Experiments 3a and 3b, participants were just as accurate at judging the duration of a final stimulus in comparison to the prior stimuli regardless of the number of standards presented prior to the final stimulus. In summary, we never found any systematic effect of the number of standards presented on performance on any of the three timing tasks. In the discussion, we briefly relate these findings to three theories of time perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.