Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39107652›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024

Independent-channels models of temporal-order judgment revisited: A model comparison.

Paul Kelber, Rolf Ulrich

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Paul KelberDepartment of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Schleichstraße 4, Tübingen, 72076, Germany. paul.kelber@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4164-0007
Rolf UlrichDepartment of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Schleichstraße 4, Tübingen, 72076, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The perception of temporal order or simultaneity of stimuli is almost always explained in terms of independent-channels models, such as perceptual-moment, triggered-moment, and attention-switching models. Independent-channels models generally posit that stimuli are processed in separate peripheral channels and that their arrival-time difference at a central location is translated into an internal state of order (simultaneity) if it reaches (misses) a certain threshold. Non-monotonic and non-parallel psychometric functions in a ternary-response task provided critical evidence against a wide range of independent-channels models. However, two independent-channels models have been introduced in the last decades that can account for such shapes by considering misreports of internal states (response-error model) or by assuming that simultaneity and order judgments rely on distinct sensory and decisional processes (two-stage model). Based on previous ideas, we also consider a two-threshold model, according to which the same arrival-time difference may need to reach a higher threshold for order detection than for successiveness detection. All three models were fitted to various data sets collected over a period of more than a century. The two-threshold model provided the best balance between goodness of fit and parsimony. This preference for the two-threshold model over the two-stage model and the response-error model aligns well with several lines of evidence from cognitive modeling, psychophysics, mental chronometry, and psychophysiology. We conclude that the seemingly deviant shapes of psychometric functions can be explained within the framework of independent-channels models in a simpler way than previously assumed.

Indexed as

JudgmentTime PerceptionAttentionHumansModels, PsychologicalPsychometricsPsychophysicsSensory ThresholdsCognitive modelingIndependent-channels modelsPsychometric functionsSimultaneity judgmentTemporal-order judgment

Identifiers

PMID39107652
PMCPMC11410913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.