ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Internal reference updating in visual duration discrimination: A search for boundary conditions : Internal reference updating.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A growing body of psychophysical research suggests that the discrimination of successive stimuli involves more than taking the difference between their sensation magnitudes, challenging traditional difference models. Two elaborated theories assume that each sensation magnitude is weighted by its reference level (sensation weighting model) or that the second sensation magnitude is compared to a dynamically updated internal reference, in which the first sensation magnitude gravitates towards the previous reference level (internal reference model). Whereas both models can explain higher discrimination sensitivity when the standard precedes the comparison (negative Type B effect), only the sensation weighting model can account for higher discrimination sensitivity when the standard follows the comparison (positive Type B effect). Most previous studies reported negative Type B effects, while some positive Type B effects have also been reported, especially for duration discrimination with short stimulus durations and/or short inter-stimulus intervals combined with adaptive-staircase procedures. The present study systematically searched for positive Type B effects in visual duration discrimination by orthogonally varying stimulus duration (80 vs. 500 ms standard), inter-stimulus interval (200 vs. 900 ms), and stimulus type (filled vs. empty intervals) across four experiments using the method of constant stimuli. Type B effects were consistently negative across all experimental conditions and analysis methods. The absence of positive Type B effects is consistent with the internal reference model and casts doubt on whether the additional flexibility in the sensation weighting model is needed to explain visual duration discrimination sensitivity.
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.