Time-order errors and standard-position effects in duration discrimination: An experimental study and an analysis by the sensation-weighting model

Studies have shown that the discriminability of successive time intervals depends on the presentation order of the standard (St) and the comparison (Co) stimuli. Also, this order affects the point of subjective equality. The first effect is here called the standard-position effect (SPE); the latter is known as the time-order error. In the present study, we investigated how these two effects vary across interval types and standard durations, using Hellström’s sensation-weighting model to describe the results and relate them to stimulus comparison mechanisms. In Experiment 1, four modes of interval presentation were used, factorially combining interval type (filled, empty) and sensory modality (auditory, visual). For each mode, two presentation orders (St–Co, Co–St) and two standard durations (100 ms, 1,000 ms) were used; half of the participants received correctness feedback, and half of them did not. The interstimulus interval was 900 ms. The SPEs were negative (i.e., a smaller difference limen for St–Co than for Co–St), except for the filled-auditory and empty-visual 100-ms standards, for which a positive effect was obtained. In Experiment 2, duration discrimination was investigated for filled auditory intervals with four standards between 100 and 1,000 ms, an interstimulus interval of 900 ms, and no feedback. Standard duration interacted with presentation order, here yielding SPEs that were negative for standards of 100 and 1,000 ms, but positive for 215 and 464 ms. Our findings indicate that the SPE can be positive as well as negative, depending on the interval type and standard duration, reflecting the relative weighting of the stimulus information, as is described by the sensation-weighting model.

Regional climate model simulations for Europe at 6 and 0.2 k BP: sensitivity to changes in anthropogenic deforestation

This study aims to evaluate the direct effects of anthropogenic deforestation on simulated climate at two contrasting periods in the Holocene, ~6 and ~0.2 k BP in Europe. We apply We apply the Rossby Centre regional climate model RCA3, a regional climate model with 50 km spatial resolution, for both time periods, considering three alternative descriptions of the past vegetation: (i) potential natural vegetation (V) simulated by the dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS, (ii) potential vegetation with anthropogenic land use (deforestation) from the HYDE3.1 (History Database of the Global Environment) scenario (V + H3.1), and (iii) potential vegetation with anthropogenic land use from the KK10 scenario (V + KK10). The climate model results show that the simulated effects of deforestation depend on both local/regional climate and vegetation characteristics. At ~6 k BP the extent of simulated deforestation in Europe is generally small, but there are areas where deforestation is large enough to produce significant differences in summer temperatures of 0.5–1 °C. At ~0.2 k BP, extensive deforestation, particularly according to the KK10 model, leads to significant temperature differences in large parts of Europe in both winter and summer. In winter, deforestation leads to lower temperatures because of the differences in albedo between forested and unforested areas, particularly in the snow-covered regions. In summer, deforestation leads to higher temperatures in central and eastern Europe because evapotranspiration from unforested areas is lower than from forests. Summer evaporation is already limited in the southernmost parts of Europe under potential vegetation conditions and, therefore, cannot become much lower. Accordingly, the albedo effect dominates in southern Europe also in summer, which implies that deforestation causes a decrease in temperatures. Differences in summer temperature due to deforestation range from −1 °C in south-western Europe to +1 °C in eastern Europe. The choice of anthropogenic land-cover scenario has a significant influence on the simulated climate, but uncertainties in palaeoclimate proxy data for the two time periods do not allow for a definitive discrimination among climate model results.

Individual differences in working memory capacity explain the relationship between general discrimination ability and psychometric intelligence

The close association between psychometric intelligence and general discrimination ability (GDA), conceptualized as latent variable derived from performance on different sensory discrimination tasks, is empirically well-established but theoretically widely unclear. The present study contrasted two alternative explanations for this association. The first explanation is based on what Spearman (1904) referred to as a central function underlying this relationship in the sense of the g factor of intelligence and becoming most evident in GDA. In this case, correlations between different aspects of cognitive abilities, such as working memory (WM) capacity, and psychometric intelligence should be mediated by GDA if their correlation is caused by g. Alternatively, the second explanation for the relationship between psychometric intelligence and GDA proceeds from fMRI studies which emphasize the role of WM functioning for sensory discrimination. Given the well-known relationship between WM and psychometric intelligence, the relationship between GDA and psychometric intelligence might be attributed to WM. The present study investigated these two alternative explanations at the level of latent variables. In 197 young adults, a model in which WM mediated the relationship between GDA and psychometric intelligence described the data better than a model in which GDA mediated the relationship between WM and psychometric intelligence. Moreover, GDA failed to explain portions of variance of psychometric intelligence above and beyond WM. These findings clearly support the view that the association between psychometric intelligence and GDA must be understood in terms of WM functioning.